New answers tagged nuclear-weapons
8
votes
Accepted
Can China or the IAEA end Israel's nuclear program?
To be fair, China is only asking, not so much threatening. Call it a pious bit of theater that few probably paid any attention to *
It is also worthwhile looking at the context where it was made:
&...
3
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
Russia possesses on the order of 6000 nuclear weapons.
Of those, under 2000 are ready to launch at a moment's notice.
If 90% of them fail to launch or are intercepted, that is 200 nuclear weapons.
The ...
- 2,366
-2
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
They are not the same missiles. For an ordinary missile, you pay $x and expect y% chance to damage the enemy. If you could build a missile for $2x then you would do that if its chances are more than ...
- 4,880
24
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
Mutually assured destruction has never required all of the warheads make it to your enemy... or even that most of them do. In fact it is the exact opposite. Military planners have assumed since the ...
- 341
3
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
[Even under the wrong assumption that nations had air defenses capable of intercepting even half of incoming ICBM-based warheads]
An intercepted nuclear warhead just becomes a dirty bomb. So if you're ...
- 521
6
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
it appears that a considerable amount of (conventional) missiles that get fired are shot down by the defenders' air-defence systems. I've also heard of Israel's "Iron Dome" which is capable ...
- 827
28
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
It would seem that in a "second strike" scenario, many of the missiles could be shot down before they reach their targets, and since even the larger nuclear powers have a limited number of ...
- 541
52
votes
Accepted
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
ICBMs are notoriously hard to intercept. In their final flight phase (where normal anti-missile systems intercept), they are very fast, usually split into many different targets, and have ...
- 1,925
3
votes
Is "Mutually Assured Destruction" still valid considering so many conventional missiles are currently getting shot down?
Mutual Destruction is certainly less "assured" nowadays.
The idea of MAD, however, still exists. At least somewhat. Because some nuclear countries don't have the best air-defence systems, ...
- 3,396
-1
votes
Is there any international law that prohibits the use of nuclear weapon against another country?
The typical scenario of using nuclear weapons as depicted in the literature is the massive strike with powerful weapons over the centres of the densely populated cities, civilians clearly being a ...
- 16.5k
5
votes
Is there any international law that prohibits the use of nuclear weapon against another country?
No, there isn't.
But some countries have voluntarily adopted a policy of "no first strike", which says that in case of a war, they will never be the first party to use nuclear weapons ...
- 6,681
13
votes
Accepted
Is there any international law that prohibits the use of nuclear weapon against another country?
This was considered by the ICJ in 1996, to quote the Red Cross:
On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion concerning the legality of nuclear weapons. The Court ...
- 115k
1
vote
Why isn't there a similar pressure on Israel to join the NPT, like with Iran?
As the answer by @o.m. correctly points out, membership in the NPT is voluntary, and forcing any country to join it would constitute a breach of its sovereignty. Of course, de facto weaker countries ...
- 11.8k
2
votes
To what extent could India, Pakistan, China, France, and/or the UK individually destroy the U.S. and/or Russia with their nukes if it came to that?
Sounds like your question is two-pronged: 1) Can these powers deliver nuclear weapons to the US/Russia? and 2) Just how destructive are nuclear weapons anyway?
The answer to #1 is in general yes. See ...
- 32.4k
7
votes
Accepted
To what extent could India, Pakistan, China, France, and/or the UK individually destroy the U.S. and/or Russia with their nukes if it came to that?
The UK posture (and France's) is not about destroying Russia beforehand.
It is to essentially hurt it very badly it in an counterstrike. The UK has 4 Trident subs.
There are four nuclear submarines –...
-1
votes
Why would Russia care about NATO troops on its borders if it has nuclear weapons?
First what should be said, that NATO troops = The US nukes there. Just remember the Caribbean crysis(The Cuban Missile Crises 1962), and you will understand what is the kind of care.
Second moment ...
- 452
2
votes
Why would Russia care about NATO troops on its borders if it has nuclear weapons?
If your neighbour, who you do not particularly like, decided to set up right outside your bedroom, would you sleep soundly simply because you have a button that can blow up the whole street?
Russia ...
- 1,416
Top 50 recent answers are included