How do you get nuclear weapons to become 'accepted' as legitimate weapons for warfare?

[James G]

Nuclear weapons have always been a political weapon.
Could they have been different though, accepted as just big & effective bombs rather than political tools?

I was thinking maybe they weren't used against Japanese cities first but against beaches or fortresses? That would mean a different end in Japan.
Is this possible?

[stevep]

Apr 30, 2018 21:42:49 GMT James G said:

Nuclear weapons have always been a political weapon.
Could they have been different though, accepted as just big & effective bombs rather than political tools?

I was thinking maybe they weren't used against Japanese cities first but against beaches or fortresses? That would mean a different end in Japan.
Is this possible?

  I think as their power grows and also the importance of lasting affects, most noticeably radioactive fall-out becomes known the danger of widespread use is likely to cause serious pressure for them to be limited to deterrent use.  [Along with the usual egotistical nutters demanding unilateral disarmament- which greatly increases the probability they will be used.]

  It possible you could see more use, say in Korea which means that there is an acceptance of low level use as a warning shot so to speak - albeit a very destructive one - where one faction is warning another no further or else!  It would require that the user, which would be the US in the Korean example, doesn't go for total victory, say in deposing Mao's regime as otherwise there will be a massive incentive for anyone who can get them to have nukes.  Which could make for a very, very dangerous world, at least in some regions.

  Alternatively if there is a low level nuclear exchange between two relatively weak nuclear powers, i.e. new members of the club.  Even then this is likely to reinforce their status as political tools as the alternative of using them too freely in combat will be seen as too costly for everybody.

  Basically I think what your asking for is impossible, at least once they start spreading and getting more powerful.  [Or possibly I'm just hoping this but I definitely want to be right here!]

[raunchel]

To do that, you basically have to change the public perception of nukes, which was born by the attacks on Japanese cities which (although things in reality were more complex), in the public mind, directly led to the Japanese surrender. So, basically, they were shown as war-winning weapons.

If instead of being demonstrated war-winners they were only theoretical war-winners, because of a lack of real world proof, you end up in a different situation entirely. That either requires the Japanese to hold on until at least an invasion, or, of course, a simple delay in the Manhattan Project. In this situation, they are just very big bombs, and are probably seen as just the next great leap in strategic bombing.

[stevep]

May 1, 2018 10:44:59 GMT raunchel said:

To do that, you basically have to change the public perception of nukes, which was born by the attacks on Japanese cities which (although things in reality were more complex), in the public mind, directly led to the Japanese surrender. So, basically, they were shown as war-winning weapons.

If instead of being demonstrated war-winners they were only theoretical war-winners, because of a lack of real world proof, you end up in a different situation entirely. That either requires the Japanese to hold on until at least an invasion, or, of course, a simple delay in the Manhattan Project. In this situation, they are just very big bombs, and are probably seen as just the next great leap in strategic bombing.

  True but I think after their use in some conflict, which would seem very likely in that scenario, then there would be a new assessment of how practical it was to use them for 'war fighting' rather than as a political tool.  I.e. that it would be only a temporary phase that it was considered a war winning weapon against a nuclear opponent. 

  In fact, assuming that the Manhattan Project was delayed and if it was still necessary for an invasion of Japan with the probable resultant bloodbath, I suspect use in say Korea would be markedly more likely.  Japan might have surrendered anyway without them given the growing destruction and the Soviet attack.  Its less likely given the continued opposition OTL but we'll never know for sure.

[spanishspy]

Let MacArthur have his way in the Korean War and have the US drop nukes on several places in northeastern China. That'd make nukes be considered a 'normal' weapon of 20th-century war.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2018 0:47:48 GMT spanishspy said:

Let MacArthur have his way in the Korean War and have the US drop nukes on several places in northeastern China. That'd make nukes be considered a 'normal' weapon of 20th-century war.

Agreed. And later on when tactical weapons are developed and refined, you could well see nukes used against guerilla fighters or violent popular uprisings. Imagine if we used tac nukes against the Vietcong or the Soviets using them against the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

[stevep]

May 2, 2018 5:25:57 GMT @theavalonproject said:

May 2, 2018 0:47:48 GMT spanishspy said:

Let MacArthur have his way in the Korean War and have the US drop nukes on several places in northeastern China. That'd make nukes be considered a 'normal' weapon of 20th-century war.

Agreed. And later on when tactical weapons are developed and refined, you could well see nukes used against guerilla fighters or violent popular uprisings. Imagine if we used tac nukes against the Vietcong or the Soviets using them against the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

  That could be the danger, that without a moral reaction to the initial use against an already pretty much defeated Japan use in Korea and elsewhere could mean that its seen as reasonably OK to use against non-nuclear powers that aren't closely allied to a nuclear power.  In which case that sort of fairly widespread use could occur.  That is going to be very messy however and what if a power gives an ally/satellite who is subject to such attacks a few nukes for retaliation?

[raunchel]

May 2, 2018 14:30:12 GMT stevep said:

May 2, 2018 5:25:57 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Agreed. And later on when tactical weapons are developed and refined, you could well see nukes used against guerilla fighters or violent popular uprisings. Imagine if we used tac nukes against the Vietcong or the Soviets using them against the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

  That could be the danger, that without a moral reaction to the initial use against an already pretty much defeated Japan use in Korea and elsewhere could mean that its seen as reasonably OK to use against non-nuclear powers that aren't closely allied to a nuclear power.  In which case that sort of fairly widespread use could occur.  That is going to be very messy however and what if a power gives an ally/satellite who is subject to such attacks a few nukes for retaliation?

It will probably follow the same basic rules as other proxy wars. You don't hit the enemy mainland. But, it could mean (assuming nothing else changes) it getting very hard to wage one, because it's a lot harder if your bases are occasionally being hit with a tactical nuke.

[paul]

why in earth would you want to?

[spanishspy]

May 19, 2018 1:58:25 GMT paul said:

why in earth would you want to?

Bad outcomes are often interesting outcomes.

[James G]

May 19, 2018 1:58:25 GMT paul said:

why in earth would you want to?

The point of the question was to ask how it could be the accepted way to use nukes as conventional weapons.
It wasn't a desire to see it that way: just to ask how history could have been changed.

[lordroel]

From this link: Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo

[paul]

May 19, 2018 17:56:16 GMT lordroel said:

From this link: Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo

I think the USSR was right. once the balloon goes up everything weapon is in play and total destruction the only outcome.

[steffen]

Nuclear weapons can´t be tactical.

If one side has nukes and use them (tactical) the other side is "hands off" for everything they have - including chemical and biological weapons.

Nukes aren´t "normal" weapons, they violate the rules of war.

You use em, you remove every aspect of "normal" fighting.
Basically - if Side A has 400.000 Prisoners of War of Side B, B use nukes, A is allowed to burn these 400k alive.
Why? B used nukes.

If Nukes would have been used more often then twice - esp. after one understood what they really did - you see more "sneak" attacks...

say USA had nuked china in korea-war, you can bet that either china or russia would "give" some nice nuclear weapons to terrorists to blow up New York or other US facilities...
Again - why? because if Side A use em - everybody is "allowed" to use them or other similar weapons of mass destruction.


OTL-today the problem with nukes is -if you have some, you are no longer in danger of an invasion or forced assault of "liberation forces", the USA so often used to remove regimes they do not (longer) like.

That is basically the box of pandora, because beyond the known nuclear powers (USA, russia, UK, france, India, Pakistan, (Exception North Korea), Israel) as more and more rouge states get em, they will sometimes use em.

Just think about a scenario in that Iran get the bomb and israel attack Iran with 10-20 nukes to be safe to destroy it.
that alone could kill 10-20 million civilians, cause a worldwide muslim outcry - and let the world fall in a world of PAIN (global terrorism, nuclear weapons to everyone (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, what ever country thinks somebody threatens it)

The fear of retalitaion keep many evil organisations and states calm - but if nukes are used, there is no such feeling - basically some "if they nuke us anyway, lets kill as much of these swines as possible".

The big 2 understood that, they also knew that a "theoretical reduced" use of nukes was a fake, both sides knew, the moment the first tactial nukes get used, the world burns.

So any scenario that has a liberal use of nukes - say in korea, vietnam by the USA has also many more states who will build and use nukes, propably most european countries, even germany and japan, but esp. newcomers in the 3rd world will build em.

You not only get more countries with nukes, you also get more accidents in nuclear plants, esp. if you build em secretly - that mean secretly is more important as safety.

You also see terror organisations who will try to blow ob nuclear plants more often... if you have no nukes, but your "mission" is helpless, because the "enemy" nuke say Bagdhad, you are ready to kill or poison 20-30 million "yankee-swines" for that.


Esp. the USA would suffer in such scenario, they are untouchable in a normal way of war, so "terrorism" with no clear enemy - that makes it difficult for the usa to strike i the best way to hurt them.

one "easy to construct" example.

In such world,korea had nuked 3-4 times, southern china 10-20 times, killing and radiating 20-50 million people in china.
This means china is true hostile to the usa, the rest of the world would see the USA as "mad dog killing idiots", USA would not sell much around the world, the countries they have bases in will see 1000times more resistance to this - basically worldwide you see an "ami go home" scenario and most people in the world will happily turn a blind eye to ANY mad dictator, if he or his minions kill americans world wide.

Worse, if such terrorists blow up an US nuclear power plant (they will sometimes have succsess), killing and poisoning say 50 million us citizens, most of the world would say "eat your own medicine". Communism and the USSR would have much more support as OTL.

Add in more and more nasty biological and chemical weapons - by weaker and smaller states and these are used more often and the world is a MUCH darker place.