What are the specific cons of nuclear war, excluding destruction and misery?

Question

i'm preparing for a debate and i don't want to have the same points that anyone could say.. anything out of the box would be much appreciated..thanks

Answer 1

Only one reason for not having a nuclear war in this day and age....global suicide. The threshold for nuclear winter is very low. Scientists have calculated that a mere 100 megatons of yield (less than 1% of the world's arsenals) would be enough to generate an epoch of coldness and darkness.

I can't think of anything that's a con that's not apart of destruction and misery. A limited nuclear exchange would cause widespread destruction and misery. A full-scall exchange would be global suicide.

The W.H.O. predicted in 1982 that "1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injures and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable.

It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. ... would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism."

Answer 2

First off, science shows that the nuclear winter or worldwide radiation aspects as portrayed in movies is way overblown. But the real problem would be mass starvation. Admiral Stansfield Turner (former CIA Director, former Naval War College President, Professor of International Security at University of Maryland, etc) wrote an article in the Naval War College Review in Spring 2001 discussing this. If you have time, try to read that article, anything anyone says on here (unless they directly quote and cite articles like the one I mention) is purely opinion. His article is well researched using open source (unclassified) documents that are cited in the article. That issue of the Review also had two other articles on the same topic, it was sort of a debate. You should be able to find them on-line at the Naval War College web page (under Naval War College Review). Do some creative searching and you will probably find it on some other reputable sites.

Here is the name of the article, I could not find a link, I have the hardcopy, but I know I've seen it on line:

The Dilemma of Nuclear Weapons in theTwenty-first Century. Spring 2001:13–23

Answer 3

In any war the 'ultimate weapon' is almost impossible to use. My dad fought in WWII, and he told me every soldier and sailor was issued a gas mask and carefully trained in how to use it. Poison gas had been considered the 'ultimate weapon' in WWI, and we expected it to be the weapon of choice in II, but it was never used! Napalm was used in Vietnam but, though it's been used since, it's considered a 'terror weapon' and nations are afraid to use it too much.

And that brings us to nukes. Every nuclear country in the world (except the US, of course) has signed a no-first-use treaty. They know that whoever uses nukes first will become the villain of the world, and all the other nations will gang up against them. No national leader can imagine a scenario where he stands to actually gain anything by the first use of nukes. It would, at the very least, be the end of his leadership. And that's the biggest reason they've never been used since a time when there was only one nuclear nation and their use was a surprise.

Terrorist might use them if they could get their hands on them, because they have nothing to lose. Even so, the nuclear material can be analyzed and traced back to a nation, and that nation would be in the same trouble.

President Nixon, widening the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia, had the perfect opportunity to use small 'tactical' nukes. There were enormous 'jungles' where thousands of enemy were hidden by trees. Nobody cared about civilian casualties in that war. Nixon could have 'made a statement', perhaps even scared away the Soviet Union. I remember many 'pundits' in those days, even some retired military, wondering why he held back. (All through Vietnam we used to hear, just as we hear today about Iraq, that "We weren't fighting to win it," that the politicians were holding back the military.)

Of course the other reason is that Hiroshima, years of testing in Nevada, and finally Chernobyl have shown us that the fallout from nuclear weapons can't be isolated to just one area. Eventually they spread over an enormous area,around the entire world, actually.

Answer 4

I'd say the biggest con from the Government's point of view is political. There would be outrage from many governments around the world if a country resorted to nuclear weapons. General Macarthur specifically asked for the release of nuclear weapons in Korea but was rejected on political grounds. If a country used a nuke I think they would be instantly be seen as escalating a conflict unnecessarily and become the "bad guy". World sympathy goes to the victim and political pressure starts to mount on the aggressor to stop the war. If it stays conventional then you can convince the world media that its a controlled war and people wont be so outraged. Israel has a public policy of using nuclear weapons if they are attacked by the Arab nations again, but they seem to have less concern for world opinion than most countries. If the USA had dropped a nuke over Baghdad I bet the voters would be screaming to impeach the President. The effect of conventional bombing is far less offensive to civilian sensibilities.

Just FYI nearly the same number of Japanese were killed in one night's fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 as were killed in Hiroshima, but no one ever talks about that. In one night 334 bombers killed 83,793 Japanese civilians and injured another 40,918 and totally destroyed over 16 square miles of the city by fire. There is debate about Hiroshima but a realistic death toll seems to be around 90,000. No one ever talks about the shame of the 'fire-bombing of Tokyo' changing the world or treats those pilots as war criminals.

I think the lesson we have to learn is that ANY war is bad, not just nuclear war.

Democracy is the answer. Do you know that no two democracies have ever fought a war against each other. Never! Not once! Power to the people.

Answer 5

Look at articles about the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those may be of some help to you, but there really are only two cons of Nuclear War; the ones you stated in your question. Nuclear contamination is nearly impossible to contain, even more so in the case of an above ground blast. It would spread throughout the atmosphere. If you go into Chem/Bio warfare, well, things are different.
The last I knew, the United States is a 'no first use' and 'use as a last resort' nation also. That's what I was taught in AIT, but with the way things are going now, it's probably changed.

Answer 6

uhh does damage to enviorment count?
well it really wouldnt matter there would be very little survivors in the aftermath
if there were survivors they all would die of course from radiation poisoning
but say it wasnt that sever then well

there would be no government, religious extremeists would declare the event as judgement day or something of sorts.
religious sects would form
and sporadic "holy wars" would erupt all over the place
lack of food and water would erupt battles over that and any supplies that exist
another thing i suppose would be panic.
something like that happens and the world just goes beserk!
everyones paranoid, suspicious, and any government with an army left is gonna want to show whos got the biggest balls
they are gonna declare marshall law people are gonna resist more death will ensue
military will most likely disband though.
who know tons of s h i t that can happen

Answer 7

In the beginning, the possession of nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent to war. But, as more countries developed these weapons, they have become more of a threat of war. Now all nations have to worry about those countries with unstable governments that have these WMD's, such as Pakistan. Iran's trying to develop nuclear weapons & still making threats against Israel & the U.S. This has become a problem for all nations that have always considered having them only as a deterrant; such as Russia, China & western Europe along with the U.S. We have a problem, one not easily rectified.

Answer 8

Resources are a driving factor in war. Take oil for example. If we dropped a bunch of Nukes on the Middle East, sure we would have no one to stand in our way. But then we would have to spend billions to rebuild an infrastructure to harvest and refine the oil. Nukes are too destructive.

Now biological/chemical weapons.... if you killed off everyone with them, well your enemies are gone, and the infrastructure is still in place.

Nukes are too messy.

Answer 9

i heard all the bodies left from a nuclear blast tastes like chicken. i'm not sure if there is scientific evidence for this, but it's worthing bring up.

Answer 10

**** roaches will still be alive