What happens when nuclear missiles become obsolete?

[Hero in a half shell]

You've probably heard of the much maligned American "Star Wars" programme from the 1980's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative It was a military organisation created to monitor and encourge the development of systems that would combat nuclear weapons, using some sort of shield or intercepting missiles to stop ICBMs.
The organisation still exists, it was renamed and made to focus more on local small missile defense, but the research is very much ongoing, and some really advanced weapons and devices are being created that could be used to protect from missiles (railguns and lazers, for example)

So my ponderance is... What do you think will happen if these systems succeed in creating a situation which renders our nuclear weaponry obsolete. Large countries are no longer restricted by threat of Mutually Assured Destruction to stop them invading each other, and we have plenty of reasond for first world countries to invade each other. The strife between Capitalism and Communism never went away, as downright hostility between America and North Korea show, with China quietly supporting the Glorious Leader himself. World War 3 will become a real possibility, and pretty much an inevitability, as it will not have the threat of making the participating countries barren radioactive deathzones. How do you think the wars of the future be fought if the main deterrant of our age is rendered obsolete? What will happen when some countries have this defence and others do not, and what happens if NK get it?

 

[Kryzantine]

Look, North Korea is much, much more than communism. Nobody cares about the idea that they're a communist country, that's just western rhetoric. The problem is mere geopolitical positioning - China defends NK because it is a buffer zone. By far the easiest border to invade China from is the Korean border. They don't like that SK is buddy-buddy w/ us. Were we to take over NK, they would attack us no matter what, because they'd consider that encroachment, nukes or no nukes. Why the hell do you think they crossed over the border during the Korean War in the first place?

At the same time, they don't like the regime in NK. The problem is that NK is starving because 80% of the land there is mountain and unsuitable for agriculture. To compensate for this, NK is not just importing food from China, but they're terracing too. The problem with THAT, is that since those mountains are being terraced, valuable mineral deposits are going to waste. NK is a mining haven waiting to be exploited, but the government there doesn't want to exploit it. They want to be self-sufficient. They want to survive as their own country.

So the example in the OP was rather poorly chosen, because the stalemate in Korea has almost nothing to do with nuclear arms, but rather the issue of border control.

On the other hand, there is one conflict which will be significantly affected by this defense grid, and that is the feud between India and Pakistan. Both are intent on nuking the other, and the first one that will be protected by this grid will want to launch its nukes at the other country ASAP. That would be rather bad for global stability, so we're more likely to see diplomatic mediation involving the two countries and their benefactors, the US and China respectively (and slightly off-topic, if you ever get the chance to look into it, the relationship between China and Pakistan is absolutely fascinating and one of the most underrated political alliances of the modern era in terms of importance).

In short, a system that renders the nuclear deterrent obsolete would be rather useless, because we've already rendered the nuclear deterrent obsolete through diplomacy. I don't think we'll be launching nukes at each other even if we could.

 

[Canid117]

ICBMs would be obsolete in the face of such a system but nuclear warheads would still be the most powerful weapon in anyones arsenal. Even if such a system was in place a Boomer could park off the coast and launch its missiles in an arc flat enough to evade the shield. MAD wont be quiet as guaranteed but it will still be a real possibility.

 

[scarfacetehstag]

MAD was never an actual reason as to why war was never started, the concept of all out land war was what kept the cold war cold. North Korea is nowhere near as powerful as we think it is, china would never join into a war with North Korea against the THE PLANET. If they were involved at all it would be in an american-early-WW2 situation. If North Korea were to declare war on south korea it would be a very short and uneventful war. Homefront will never happen, don't worry.

 

[Comando96]

You could stop the use of nuclear missiles... but your only stopping a missile.

You still have nuclear warheads and if they developed a method of more effective delivery then that would still prevent wars... or even a use where you changed their role solely to a battlefield role of "try to attack us and we nuke your army before it arrives".

Effectively we have gotten to the point where all nations are turtling effectively enough that many attacks by conventional armies would be met by amassed failure. To use a conventional attack would requite someone to infiltrate and hit the off switch.

 

[megs1120]

The economies of China and the U.S. are too tightly intertwined for either side to get involved in a shooting conflict without mutually destroying each other's economies. If the DPRK started a war, they would lose their economic lifeline in China, and would have ultimately lost before the first shell landed in Seoul. The threat of sanctions and embargoes are the new MAD.

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

NK isn't even a communist country, it's just an obnoxious little man who has an entire brainwashed country under his control. And china doesn't give a shit about anybody but themselves and has much more to worry about than having a scuffle with any of its neighbors. And china isn't as communist as it used to be, once the USSR died communism started to go away. It's all about the crazy dictators and terrorists now. But about the missile defense programs, it might render Missiles obsolete but it won't completely defeat nuclear weaponry, they can still be delivered by planes, artillery and maybe even cars. Plus, the missile defense program won't work 100% of the time.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Simple: Launch drones up into space, have them attach to large NEO's (near Earth objects) and attach guidance and propulsion systems to them. Railguns and lasers may be able to disarm nukes but they'll be useless against fucking asteroids.

 

[megs1120]

NK isn't even a communist country, it's just an obnoxious little man who has an entire brainwashed country under his control. And china doesn't give a shit about anybody but themselves and has much more to worry about than having a scuffle with any of its neighbors. And china isn't as communist as it used to be, once the USSR died communism started to go away. It's all about the crazy dictators and terrorists now. But about the missile defense programs, it might render Missiles obsolete but it won't completely defeat nuclear weaponry, they can still be delivered by planes, artillery and maybe even cars. Plus, the missile defense program won't work 100% of the time.

Er, it's kind of complicated, especially Sino-Soviet relations. China and the USSR loathed each other after Khrushchev denounced Mao's pal Stalin and loosened restrictions on free speech. The U.S. forged an uneasy alliance with China in the 1970s in order to play the two communist superpowers against each other and to nudge China toward market reforms.

Like Kryzantine said, it all comes down to diplomacy and, if I may add, economic self-interest.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I really doubt they will ever become obsolete in our conceivable history.
I mean come one, the still had nuclear missiles in Star Craft 1!
We could very well end up with some kind of Metal Gear Solid scenario in which missiles are fired from Railguns and cannot be detected until its too late to react. Something like that I'm sure.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I thought this thread would be about weapons significantly more powerful than nukes that serve the exact same function, making them redundant. In which case I'd hope they'd build a nuke-proof bunker, take them down one by one, and explode them, harnessing the energy to power new york city for three minutes.

OT: You'd assume that very quickly, every other super power would have a similar system in place, creating another stand-still while they race to break through the other's shield while reinforcing their own.

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

NK isn't even a communist country, it's just an obnoxious little man who has an entire brainwashed country under his control. And china doesn't give a shit about anybody but themselves and has much more to worry about than having a scuffle with any of its neighbors. And china isn't as communist as it used to be, once the USSR died communism started to go away. It's all about the crazy dictators and terrorists now. But about the missile defense programs, it might render Missiles obsolete but it won't completely defeat nuclear weaponry, they can still be delivered by planes, artillery and maybe even cars. Plus, the missile defense program won't work 100% of the time.

Er, it's kind of complicated, especially Sino-Soviet relations. China and the USSR loathed each other after Khrushchev denounced Mao's pal Stalin and loosened restrictions on free speech. The U.S. forged an uneasy alliance with China in the 1970s in order to play the two communist superpowers against each other and to nudge China toward market reforms.

Like Kryzantine said, it all comes down to diplomacy and, if I may add, economic self-interest.

well yeah, definitely agree with that. But it mostly comes down to the money. The US can't live without china and vice-versa nowadays. But the USSR was the forefront to communism and without it, nobody can be paranoid or scared of the communist war machine.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Down to size-

Well, the first thing of course is that Project Star Wars and whatever other name it goes by is a flop and has remained so for a long time. It's that dipshitty idea put forth as sounding good, but isn't feasible, yet they'll continue to pour money into it like you can fuel an anti-nuke platform on pure greenback. Money alone can't make technology grow faster. So, my first thought is "It won't.". The entire thing was a doofus idea from Reagan, the senile President.

My second thought is that if, oh dear, anti-nuke platforms happen, the first thing any nuclear power will do is discover ways to beat said platform. By hook or by crook, they will. Even if you have to sic hackers on it, beat the shit out of somebody for control codes, or even build a Metal Gear Rex with a nuke launcher that doesn't leave a thermal trace for tracking. Governments would resent any threat to the validity of their stockpile, even if it's tiny.

Third thought is that once nukes are out and they stop trying to phase them back in, it's obvious that the next great collection of even-deadlier weapons will be in. Let's see... The Large Hadron Collider is discovering more and more about the nature of the universe and everyone is concerned that it will generate a black hole that will kill us all. Therefore, the military will focus its runaway military budget on weapons that will distort space, punch through bunkers with a tiny amount of quark matter, develop anti-matter or black hole singularity weapons, and maybe harness dark matter.

It doesn't matter if the last bit is so far-fetched that it's leagues out of our reach. They'll try it anyway.

 

[mrdude2010]

spy networks and other things designed to sneak nuclear weapons into a country will be much more important. if a developed country can get ahold of a nuclear weapon, the modern ones can easily fit in a car, allowing them to sneak one into an enemy country and detonate it remotely.

 

[nothingspringstomind]

To take the question in the simplest terms...

If nukes were *completely* obsolete, we'd just invent another, even more horrible way of killing each other.

Microwave weaponry, mass drivers, railguns, nanoweapons, ultrasonic weapons...

Neutron bombs anyone?

These all sound like science fiction but we're bloody close to having them all realized and put too very bloody use.

captcha "how quaint"

 

[soulsabr]

If nuclear missiles were to become obsolete .... I believe we'd have to conclude that humanity has gone extinct.

 

[Comando96]

But about the missile defense programs, it might render Missiles obsolete but it won't completely defeat nuclear weaponry, they can still be delivered by planes, artillery and maybe even cars.

...Give it long enough, someone may create something resembling the fatman.

 

[KarlMonster]

Snippety do dah!
[Strategic Defense Initiative] ... still exists, it was renamed ... ['missile shield'] ... but the research is very much ongoing, and some really advanced weapons and devices are being created that could be used to protect from missiles (railguns and lazers, for example)

What do you think will happen if these systems succeed in creating a situation which renders our nuclear weaponry obsolete. ... China quietly supporting the Glorious Leader himself. World War 3 will become a real possibility, ... How do you think the wars of the future [could] be fought if the main deterr[e]nt of our age is rendered obsolete? What will happen when some countries have this defence and others do not, and what happens if NK get it?

That's a few big questions. But the answers are pretty easy.

SDI never worked. Period. Nor did 'missile shield' or any other related program. [Republican administrations have been shoveling money at fancy-sounding weapons programs that existed only in theory, and people's imaginations. The defense contractors said "... uh, sure! We could do that!" and took the money. While some "successful tests" have been reported, those were carefully staged so that nobody would look bad politically. You could almost say that SDI was an attempt by the U.S. to cause an economic implosion the same way the Soviets were doing it.] The closest thing that does work is the Patriot Missile System, which is intended to destroy large surface-to-surface missiles, not ICBMs.

About 20 years ago I heard that maintenance on each nuclear warhead in our arsenal costs $24,000/month.

(What happens when nuclear weapons become obsolete?)

Obsolete? What is that? In terms of nuclear weapons?
There is no real means to render ICBMs, or any other nuclear weapons, to be harmless. Mostly nuclear weapons are their own deterrent. Using them is actually a much, much bigger problem than having them. Everybody got really nervous several years ago when India and Pakistan demonstrated that they had nuclear weapons. [Thoughtful observers may note Pakistan's hubris; first a quest for the bomb as a matter of National Pride, and now indignance at the U.S. Spec Ops 'intrusion' to assassinate Bin Laden!] And Iran and DPRK are also-rans that really, really want them. If they do develop a nuclear bomb, they will be crude things compared to the ICBM - but still capable of really screwing up foreign policy.

(How will future wars be fought?)

Mostly by forgetting the lessons of the past; that war is futile, shockingly expensive, costs millions of lives, and has never been 'bloodless' or 'easy'. Wars will continue to be fought with conventional weapons for a long time to come, despite the cool articles that you might read in Popular Mechanics etc. Anyone who wants war, or thinks it is 'good', is pushing a personal/political agenda. Nobody actually wants war right now, except religious extremists (these include some 'christian' groups in the U.S.) and some political nutjobs - possibly including the Isrealis. [See also paragraph #2]

The DPRK is a special case. Dear Leader thrashes around and makes a big show because he wants stuff. He has no other leverage to work with. He has impoverished his nation to fuel his armed forces, and tried to raise money through smuggling and counterfeiting. However, there is a line (somewhere) that Dear Leader will not cross, and using nuclear weapons is on the other side of that line. China does not want DPRK using nukes any more than anyone else does. If anything, China wants the region to be calm so it can quietly assimilate Taiwan politically. China has spent a lot of time improving its trade and diplomatic relations with other countries in the region - including Japan - and really doesn't want DPRK screwing everything up.

In short; nukes expensive, war bad, don't worry, be happy.