The advantages of nuclear weapons against conventionally well-armed rivals?

[Engima Chaudhry]

The A-bomb is a political weapon. It helps you deflect and even dictate the opposing country's options. E.g. if Iraq had the a-bomb, the United states would never have the temerity to infamously assert about" weapons of mass destruction".
It is the same ability that secures the defence of North Korea.
The a-bomb gives you the ability to project nightmares into the minds of the opposing policy makers.
It is the ultimate " Samson's" option.

 

[what]

The fallout of attacking a nuclear powerplant on an international scale, will be the demise of whatever country that does that. It will literally poison that particular place and the surroundings for centuries.

 

[Max]

Good question, If hardened shelters, bunkers can help secure our assets from enemy bombing, maybe there is similar practice in nuclear field too, but I am not sure.

Such questions can only be answered by professionals @gambit @PanzerKiel

 

[Ahmad Saleem]

Very thought provoking topic after a long long time.



Maybe in your own self-created fantasy world.


It wouldn't help, nuclear material inside the plants doesn't switch off like an electricity bulb, the potent radioactive nuclear material remains lethal whether under operation or out of operation in a nuclear plant and it is always shielded using multiple shielding materials and techniques to confine its radioactive effects within the shielded area.

Yes i just oversimplified that but point was you have much better means of protecting your plants during war time. You can prepare in advance and dump all the radioactive material in some safe underground bunker

 

[TheMightyBender]

here are some thoughts, off the top of my head:

1. This is by far the most important point: As mentioned before attacking a nuclear power plant does not turn it into a nuclear weapon. To understand this compare Fukushima to Hiroshima. Sure Fukushima meltdown had some adverse impact on Tokyo and some people died there. But last time I checked, Tokyo still exists.
2. Nuclear power plants can be turned off and their euranium content emptied into safe underground bunkers. As soon as you attack a NPP of a nuclear power they will take all the necessary precautions for the other NPP’s, and they are safe. But it is game over for you. Because you just gave them legitimacy to erase your country off the face of the planet.

 

[kill_me]

Attacking a nuclear power plant will not be causing thousands of deaths. In the Chernobyl disaster only around 30 deaths occurred but it has rendered the area uninhabitable. If you attack 50 power plants that means 50 cities worth of area becomes waste land but attacking a large number of power plants will be close to impossible as you can hit them with conventional missile and pray for a melt down. There are several fail safes. To cause a melt down you will need to fail all the coolant systems and their backup systems along with the backups of backups.
Modern reactors now a days have such designs that after coolant fails core gets dumped with huge quantities of coolant which also works as retardant. It works like a run down tank of turbo machines which acts due to gravity rather that pumping.
to conclude, you can have nuclear power plants and be safe in case you attack other non-nuclear countries.

 

[UkroTurk]

Nuclear warheads use %90 enriched uranium while nuclear fuel uraniom dots are enriched app%3-5.

Contemporary nuclear energy santrals are constructed not to be doomed whereas nuclear bombs are made to explode.

Last but least that's why UK has air defence systems.

However i don't see any real harm from a hostile country to British nuclear plants.

 

[gambit]

Good question, If hardened shelters, bunkers can help secure our assets from enemy bombing, maybe there is similar practice in nuclear field too, but I am not sure.

Such questions can only be answered by professionals @gambit @PanzerKiel

Actually, it is very problematic, if not outright impossible, for conventional forces to recover after a nuclear attack.

Assume that the HAS protected the jet. But what of the runway? If there is no runway or even taxiways, the jet is useless. Same with the tank or the ship. With modern weapons systems, their supporting infrastructures are as important as the weapons themselves.

 

[xenon54 out]

It's not mutually assured destruction.

Yo, nice to see you around, its been a while.

 

[T-123456]

I have a question:

What are the advantages of having nuclear weapons if you have nuclear power plants within the boundaries of your country that can be easily targeted with conventional methods?

I really don't get it. So, hypothetically, UK attacks Iran with nuclear missiles. Tehran is gone. But then, the Iranians will start a counter attack against British nuclear power plants with conventional long range missiles or even cruise missiles (for the argument's sake). The outcome for the UK is worse than what has happened to Tehran because the entire island will be contaminated by radiation. Millions will die from cancer, generations of British women will give birth to children with severe health issues, British soil and water resources won't be used due to contamination etc.

So, please, what's the point of having nuclear weapons if your conventionally well-armed enemy can reach your strategic assets?

Isn't this a gigantic blind spot?

First look at the reason why countries developed nuclear weapons.
USA,UK,France and China against the USSR and vice versa as a deterrent.
Israel against the Arabs as a deterrent.
Pakistan against against India and India against Pakistan and China as a deterrent.
North Korea is a whole different story,the only country in risk of using them if cornered.
If you come to the point of using nukes,you have calculated the consequences already.
Thats why keeping them out of the hands of certain regimes is of utmost importance.
Since no sane country will ever use any nukes,your questions cant have satisfying answers.

 

[Dante80]

@KediKesenFare I really don't understand the question and the scenario at the first post. Could you expand your thought here?

1. Are you trying to say that a Nation that has a nuclear arsenal and uses nuclear power for civilian purposes cannot utilize offensively its arsenal against an adversary that doesn't?

2. Are you insinuating that any nuclear attack (even a decapitation strike?) can be offset by a conventional counter-attack on a counter-value domestic nuclear target?

3. Are you theorizing on the validity of pursuing a nuclear arsenal (with everything it entails) vs developing a counter-value conventional strike capability?