Are Nuclear Weapons Good Deterrants Against 'Regime Change'

[Exarch]

It seems most nations labelled by the US state department as 'rogue nations' (ie nations that wont allow US investment) have taken it upon themselves to develop nukes as an insurance policy against an 'iraq style' US invasion.
eg north korea, iran

How effective is the possession of nuclear weapons against the threat of overwhelming invasion?

Discuss

[Thanatos]

Well, think of it this way. If your enemies are desperate and really don't care about their lives, you can damn well be sure they'll use that nuke if you invade.

That's a lot of people dead, mate, and no developed country wants that to happen to them.

[Exarch]

Well, think of it this way. If your enemies are desperate and really don't care about their lives, you can damn well be sure they'll use that nuke if you invade.

That's a lot of people dead, mate, and no developed country wants that to happen to them.

exactly
it's the perfect deterrant.

it's arguable that developing nukes saved what was left of the 'axis of evil' from 'regime change'

[Thanatos]

Well, can you really stop it? Try as you might to hide your secrets, the other side(s) are going to develop their own eventually.

[Exarch]

i dont think they would've considered the expensive weaponising of plutonium unless they felt they were under threat.

and so whut if they have it?
good for them.
if they're signatories of the NPT then they're welcome to it.
compare this to india which is not a signatory of the NPT yet the bush admin. pretty much gave the indians nuke tech to develop nukes

[Kiljan Arslan]

until SDI yes. After they'll do about as much good as a peashooter.

[Exarch]

the question is whether or not obama will or wont fund the SDI...
with unemployment thru the roof....

[Zephyrus]

the question is whether or not obama will or wont fund the SDI...
with unemployment thru the roof....

And SDI's capabilities are theoretical. There is a very limited array of options to test this tech and prove it will be effective should such a time come.

[Kiljan Arslan]

and sdi employs peolpe and would protect the US from nuclear attack perosnally I'd like all countries to be protected from nuclear attack.

[Pickle_mole]

i cant wait for our missile shield to be fully operational, then we can have iraq 2.0 in iran!

[Kiljan Arslan]

i cant wait for our missile shield to be fully operational, then we can have iraq 2.0 in iran!

How about not. I'm not going there you can go get yourself killed if you want to.

[Pickle_mole]

How about not. I'm not going there you can go get yourself killed if you want to.

I'm glad you took me seriously, its much more fun!

[Holger Danske]

Ehm, Iran isn't capable of hitting the US, missile shield or not.

[Panzerbear]

nuclear weapons are a good deterrent against EVERYTHING .

[Caelius]

Are Nuclear Weapons Good Deterrants Against 'Regime Change'

No.

Acquiring a nuclear weapons capability in no way deters conventional pre-emptive strikes as options for eliminating the threat they pose.

Nuclear armed states have shown their ability to engage in warfare without triggering a nuclear exchange. It's just a matter of conducting the warfare at a low enough threshold to avoid escalation to more conventional and nuclear levels. Just like Death-by-a-Thousand-Cuts.

With the exception of the US and Russia no country with nukes really has a truly redundant nuclear arsenal with a dedicated second strike capability.

It seems most nations labelled by the US state department as 'rogue nations' (ie nations that wont allow US investment) have taken it upon themselves to develop nukes as an insurance policy against an 'iraq style' US invasion.
eg north korea, iran

Their best insurance policy from having the US curbstomp them in the near future would be to stop threatening their neighbors and supporting affiliates which are actively hostile to US allies...

But hey, its just an opinion.

and so whut if they have it?
good for them.
if they're signatories of the NPT then they're welcome to it.

The NPT makes it illegal for signatories to develop nuclear weapons.

N. Korea didn't sign it so they don't really apply. Iran however, did.

compare this to india which is not a signatory of the NPT yet the bush admin. pretty much gave the indians nuke tech to develop nukes

The Indians developed their nuclear program decades before the Bush Administration was even in power. Get your facts straight.

the question is whether or not obama will or wont fund the SDI...
with unemployment thru the roof....

The notion that the incoming Obama Administration is going to be appeasement heavy and conciliatory with regimes like Iran and N. Korea is wishful thinking honestly.

Most of the US ABM Shield is already operational, so its not a matter of whether Obama will fund it or not. Based on his statements already, its quite clear that he will progress with the program's development.

I've already pointed this out in an earlier thread of mine.

And SDI's capabilities are theoretical. There is a very limited array of options to test this tech and prove it will be effective should such a time come.

Wrong on so many levels....






Here's the most recent test of the Sea Based AEGIS version of the ABM by the Japanese:

the SDI machine, even if fully operational cant stop all the warheads of an MIRV

Hence why it destroys the ICBM Missile Bus before the MIRV even gets to deploy.

SDI is still totally unproven weapon and its still year and years from total implementation and even then it will not guarantee hit.

Iran is more likely to hit Israel then USA in any war or invasion anyway, same with North Korea who will hit American targets in South Korea not USA territory.

We are already seeing great nuclear deterrent against regime change. Putin is probably first leader that USA and Europe would love to be without but as long as Russia has over 5000 nukes its highly unlikely that will happen.

Read above.

You really don't know what you're talking about to be honest.

[Exarch]

No.

Acquiring a nuclear weapons capability in no way deters conventional pre-emptive strikes as options for eliminating the threat they pose.

i disagree
given bush's 'axis of evil' and 'pro regime change' rhetoric back in 03-06, states like north korea stepped up missile tests and nuclear tests as a deterrant against the then likelyhood of US 'regime change'.
what happened?
the prospect of a nuclear north korea could threaten US allies like japan and south korea and the event of a nuclear detonation would potentially undermine US reputation at defending their vassals allies.
and given the antipathy towards the Bush admin's imperialistic PFANAC overtures, the whole world would've blamed the Bush admin as provoking the attack.

having that 'nuke' compelled both north korea and USA to negotiate (with chinese help) rather than risk a nuclear detonation over seoul or japan or an american invading army.

[Farnan]

having that 'nuke' compelled both north korea and USA to negotiate (with chinese help) rather than risk a nuclear detonation over seoul or japan or an american invading army.

Actually the US has been negotiating with NK for 55 years now. And its not a nuclear, but conventional arsenal aimed at Seoul which prevents any thought of military intervention.

[Exarch]

Actually the US has been negotiating with NK for 55 years now. And its not a nuclear, but conventional arsenal aimed at Seoul which prevents any thought of military intervention.

negotiations or not, the diplomatic language used was quite...harsh.

5 October: A US envoy directly threatens North Korea as to the upcoming test, stating "It (North Korea) can have a future or it can have these (nuclear) weapons, it cannot have them both." The envoy also mentions that any attempt to test a nuclear device would be seen as a "highly provocative act." [14]

[Tiwaz]

No.

Acquiring a nuclear weapons capability in no way deters conventional pre-emptive strikes as options for eliminating the threat they pose.

Assuming you can pull it off. Nobody has proven capability of doing so. US bombing failures in Yugoslavia show how poor even most advanced military in the world is in hitting targets.

USAF missed a goddamn BRIDGE for multiple times. Nukes, specially mobile, are far more elusive targets.

Nuclear armed states have shown their ability to engage in warfare without triggering a nuclear exchange. It's just a matter of conducting the warfare at a low enough threshold to avoid escalation to more conventional and nuclear levels. Just like Death-by-a-Thousand-Cuts.

Which is not regime change. We are talking about regime change here, situation where leader of losing party has nothing to lose anymore. If you are going to be toppled and killed (look at Saddam) why bother holding back? Go in blaze and take the enemies with you.

Their best insurance policy from having the US curbstomp them in the near future would be to stop threatening their neighbors and supporting affiliates which are actively hostile to US allies...

But hey, its just an opinion.

Yeah. Hey world! Become US es so they do not attack you! Then let USA abuse you as it wishes.

I wonder why very few see this as desirable situation...

Of course, USA could stop trying to provoke conflict and tell it's allies to stop abusing their neighbors too. It is not like these allies or USA are white little sheep who never do anything wrong.

No sirree! USA would NEVER lie to get excuse to invade another country.

[Kiljan Arslan]

not really all they are is a threat of anhilation not exactly how I would like to keep the peace I'd rather a dozen world wars like world war 2 be fought then have them be prevented because of nuclear annihilation.