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

[KediKesenFare3]

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?

 

[Dariush the Great]

When all other nations went for shiney aircraft or osme other useless weaponry just for domestic consumption Iran worked hard on pinpoint Ballistic Missiles. The attack on Saudi arabia and that US base is a very good case of pinpoint BM or cruise missile strikes.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

When all other nations went for shiney aircraft or osme other useless weaponry just for domestic consumption Iran worked hard on pinpoint Ballistic Missiles. The attack on Saudi arabia and that US base is a very good case of pinpoint BM or cruise missile strikes.

It's really not about Iran and its missile program. You can exchange Iran with Turkey and UK with Russia or any other nation. I'm interested in how this strategy works against well equipped non-nuclear armies.

 

[Bismarck]

I have a dumb 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?

The impact of destroying a power plant will not only effect one country.

 

[MMM-E]

The impact of destroying a power plant will not only effect one country.

if any body destroy 50+ nuclear power plants in France then what about Germany ?

 

[Bismarck]

if any body destroy 50+ nuclear power plants in France then what about Germany ?

You mean Europe. Thats my point.

We would not blame France, thats for sure.

 

[Armchair]

Attacking a nuclear power plant will not turn it into an atomic bomb.

 

[aziqbal]

a nuclear weapon is a weapon of deference and will not be used against a well armed conventional army

the whole purpose of nuclear weapons is peace through deterrence, if Pakistan never had them India would have attacked us 15 times since 1998

and since 1998 we have had stand off but never full scale engagements, if you avoided a war through nuclear weapons your weapons did the job and its a big tick in the box

better to have them and not use them than to need them and not have them

plus you are respected by the entire world

Pakistan should develop a naval nuclear arm using submarines no what the cost is

 

[Ahmad Saleem]

Simple you can shut down the plants before hand

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It's not mutually assured destruction.

 

[Mrc]

If u target 50 nuclear plants don't expect that other side will throw a single nuclear bomb

They may throw more from start in anticipation of your move

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Attacking a nuclear power plant will not turn it into an atomic bomb.

This is my point. It's worse.

 

[Bismarck]

It can turn into DBE.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I have a dumb 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?

The above is a really good question.

 

[Crusher]

Very thought provoking topic after a long long time.

-------------------

plus you are respected by the entire world

Pakistan should develop a naval nuclear arm using submarines no what the cost is

Maybe in your own self-created fantasy world.

Simple you can shut down the plants before hand

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.