Nuclear warfare and Talk:Minsc: Difference between pages

Revision as of 19:19, 28 July 2004

Revision as of 20:30, 20 June 2007

Line 1:

{{cvgproj|class=start|importance=}}

'''Nuclear war''', or '''atomic war''', is [[war]] involving two or more combatants deploying [[nuclear weapon|nuclear weapons]].

I love Minsc, but I don't think it's fair to say that only Sarevok surpasses him- Korgan is just as good a fighter, possibly better, and only gets the short shaft from fans because he's tempermentally unsuited to most parties. [[User:Stilgar135|Stilgar135]] 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

== Warrior? ==

In general the discussion can be broken down further into subgroups. In the ''limited nuclear war'' (sometimes ''attack'' or ''exchange'') only small numbers of weapons are used in a tactical exchange aimed primarily at opposing [[military]] forces. In the ''full-scale nuclear war'' large numbers of weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire [[country]], both military and civilian targets being "fair game". Soon after the first use of atomic weapons, a [[doomsday clock]] was instigated as a symbolic countdown to such full-scale nuclear war.

"Minsc is the strongest joinable warrior in both games"

== Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk ==

Isn't Minsc a Ranger?

The [[United States]] is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, or on civilian populations, having in [[1945]] dropped two of them on cities in [[Japan]] – one on [[Hiroshima]] and another on [[Nagasaki]].

[[User:Deadhoax|Deadhoax]] ([[User talk:Deadhoax|<small><font style="color:#800080;">Talk</font></small>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Deadhoax|<small><font style="color:#800080;">Contr</font></small>]]) 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

With a hamster yes. But with the way he acts, its a mix between Warrion/Fighter, paladin(doing hid own good, a good rebel)and ranger, with abilities.

In the period following the ending of [[World War II]], the US developed a strategic force based on the [[B-36]] [[bomber]] that would be able to attack any potential aggressor from its bases in the US. The idea of an actual attack was considered somewhat remote, no other nation had "the bomb", and the real fear in higher circles was that a "crazy general" would launch an attack on the [[Soviet Union]] on his own. As a result the US placed its weapons in the hands of the separate [[United States Atomic Energy Commission|Atomic Energy Commission]]. In the event of a war the SAC bombers would have to fly to AEC bases to be loaded with bombs, a process that was assumed to take days.

[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Over a period of a few short years the US became increasingly convinced of its invincibility, and that the threat of nuclear war would deter any major wars. Some thought was given to placing the AEC's arsenal under some sort of international control, or placing limits on its development.

A Ranger is a type of warrior. [[User:Pyromaniac589|Pyromaniac589]] 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On August 29, 1949 the USSR tested its first bomb at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan. Although the scientists from the [[Manhattan Project]] had been warning that such an event was only a matter of time, the effect on the US psyche was astounding.

== PC vs NPC ==

The cat being out of the bag, proliferation continued from that point on, with Britain testing her first atomic bomb in 1952, and France hers in 1960; but the European arsenals have always been insignificant compared to those of the superpowers, and it was the nuclear weapons of the USA and USSR which were to concern the world for the remainder of the 20th century.

Minsc is '''not''' a non-playable character since not only can he join the group but he is also fully under the control of the player. This should be changed in the article. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_character wikipedia's article] [[User:Bragador|Bragador]] 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== The Cold War ==

== Sarevok spoiler? ==

While the USSR now had the bomb, the US still had a massive lead in terms of bombers and weapons. In any sort of exchange the US would be able to bomb the USSR without too much trouble, while the USSR would have some difficultly arranging the same.

It might be a borderline-case, but shouldn't Sarevoks appearence in Baldur's Gate 2 (and especially that he can join your party) be marked as a spoiler? It's in the "Powers"-section. <blockquote>''Minsc is the strongest joinable warrior in both games (Strength 18/93) until the Baldurs Gate II addon Throne of Bhaal that introduced Sarevok (Strength 18/00) (...)''</blockquote> -- [[User:Anissen|Anissen]] 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The widespread introduction of [[jet]] powered [[interceptor aircraft]] upset this balance somewhat by reducing the effectiveness of the US's bomber fleet. In 1949 [[Curtis LeMay]] was placed in command of the [[Strategic Air Command]] and started a program to update the bomber fleet to one that was all-jet. During the early 1950s the [[B-47]] and [[B-52 Stratofortress|B-52]] were introduced, giving the US the ability to convincingly penetrate the USSR.

== Vin Moosk and Boo ==

Before the development of a credible strategic [[missile]] force in the [[Soviet Union]], much of the war-fighting doctrine on the part of the western nations revolved around the use a large numbers of smaller nuclear weapons used in the tactical role. It is arguable if such use could be considered "limited"; however, it was thought that the [[United States|US]] would use their own strategic weapons (mainly [[bomber]]s at the time) should the USSR use any sort of nuclear weapon against civilian targets.

You don't suppose that when there is another episodes of [[Kids Next Door]] featuring Moosk, that Boo may make a Cameo/homage role? After all there Are hamsters in the show and Moosk is very much like Minsc. Even the name is a slight anagram.

Several scares over increasing ability of the USSR's strategic bomber forces surfaced during the [[1950s]]. The defensive response on the part of the US was to deploy a fairly strong [[layered defense]] consisting of [[interceptor aircraft]] and [[anti-aircraft]] [[missile]]s and [[guns]], like the [[Project Nike|Nike]] or [[Skysweeper]], near larger cities. However this was a small response compared to the building of a huge fleet of nuclear bombers, the idea being that the USSR's huge area could not be defended against attack in any credible way, and they would "lose" any exchange.

Vin Moosk

This logic became ingrained in the US's way of thinking throughout the [[Cold War]]. As long as the ''strategic'' force of the US was larger than the USSR's forces in total, there was nothing to worry about. Moreover the USSR simply could not afford to build any reasonable counterforce, the US's economic output was such that they could never catch up.

Minsc (C is a K sound)

[[User:Pece Kocovski|Pece Kocovski]] 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Things changed with the introduction of the [[intercontinental ballistic missile]] (ICBM), which the USSR first tested successfully in the late 1950s. To get a [[warhead]] on target, a [[missile]] was far less expensive than a bomber that could do the same job. Moreover it was impossible to intercept them due to their high altitude and speed. The USSR could now afford to go head to head with the US in terms of raw numbers, although for a time they appeared to have chosen not to.

Photos of Soviet missile sites set off a wave of panic in the US military, something the launch of [[Sputnik]] would do for the public a few years later. Politicians became obsessed with a perceived "missile gap" between the Soviets and the US. The US military gave missile development programs the highest national priority, and several [[reconnaissance aircraft|spy aircraft]] and [[spy satellite|satellites]] were designed and deployed to check on Soviet progress.

Issues came to a head during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] in [[1962]]. The USSR backed down from what could have been the spark for a nuclear war, and decided to institute a massive building program of their own. By the late [[1960s]] numbers of ICBMs and warheads were so high on both sides that either the USA or USSR was capable of destroying the other country's infrastructure. Thus a [[balance of power]] system known as [[mutually assured destruction]] (''MAD'') came into being. It was thought that the possibility of a general thermonuclear war was so deadly neither power would risk initiating one.

By the late [[1970s]] people of both the US and USSR had been living with MAD for about a decade. It became ingrained into the popular psyche at a deep level. Such an exchange would have killed many millions of individuals directly and, it was thought, possibly induced a [[nuclear winter]] which could, in the worst-case scenario, have led to the death of a large portion of humanity and certainly the collapse of global civilization. Many [[film|movies]] such as [[The Day After]], [[Threads]], [[WarGames]], and [[Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb|Dr.Strangelove]] depict this scenario, as did the [[Planet of the Apes (1968 movie)|Planet of the Apes]] (1968-1973) and [[Mad Max]] (1979-1985) films.

According to the [[1980]] [[United Nations]] report ''General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General'', it was estimated that in total there were approximately 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time with a total yield of approximately 13,000 [[megaton]]s of [[Trinitrotoluene|TNT]]. By comparison, when the [[volcano]] [[Tambora]] erupted in [[1815]] it exploded with a force of roughly 1000 megatons of TNT. Many people believed that a full-scale nuclear war could result in the extinction of the human species, but this was not based on any well-supported models.

The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate into MAD was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its [[NATO]] allies because it was believed until the 1970s that a Soviet [[tank]] invasion of Western [[Europe]] would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of escalating to theater nuclear weapons.

A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate which lead to the concept of counter-city strikes -- attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy's will to fight, although it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population. During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, little to no preparations were made for civilians at all, except for the occasional backyard fallout shelter built by private individuals. This was part of a deliberate strategy on the Americans' part that stressed the difference between first and second strike strategies. By leaving their population largely exposed, this gave the impression that the US had no intention of launching a first strike nuclear war, as their cities would clearly be decimated in the retaliation.

The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. This was intended to reinforce the second strike pose. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy's silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.

This strategy had one major and very possibly critical flaw, soon realised by military analysts but highly underplayed by the US military: Conventional [[NATO]] forces in the European theatre of war were considered to be outnumbered by similar Soviet and [[Warsaw Pact]] forces, and while the western countries invested heavily in high-tech conventional weapons to counter this (partly perceived) imbalance, it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly perceived as the 'red tanks rolling towards the [[North Sea]]' scenario) the [[NATO]], in the face of conventional defeat, would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would become almost inevitable.

So, while official US policy was a clearly stated 'non first-use policy', never to strike first with nuclear weapons, the reality was that the lack of strength of conventional [[NATO]] forces would force the US to either abandon Western Europe or use nuclear weapons in its defense. Even though after Soviet collapse investigations by historians and military analysts revealed that the effectiveness of [[Warsaw Pact]] forces was rated far higher than they really were, official [[NATO]] doctrine had been critically flawed from the onset and global thermonuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred.

This major flaw, although largely ignored by the military community, quickly gathered public interest and many movies and books were based upon this and several other weaknesses in the policy of [[mutually assured destruction]].

As missile technology improved the emphasis moved to counter-force strikes: ones that directly attacked the enemy's means of waging war. This was the predominant doctrine from the late [[1960s]] onwards. Additionally the development of warheads (at least in the US) moved towards delivering a small explosive force more accurately and with a "cleaner" blast (with fewer long-lasting [[radioactivity|radioactive]] [[isotope]]s). In any conflict therefore, damage would have been initially limited to military targets, there may well have been 'withholds' for targets near civilian areas. The argument was that the destruction of a city would be a military advantage to the ''attacked''. The enemy had used up weapons and a threat in the destruction while the attacked was relieved of the need to defend the city and still had their entire military potential untouched.

Only if a nuclear conflict were extended into a number of 'spasm' strikes would direct strikes against civilians occur as the more accurate weapons would be expended early; if one side was 'losing', the potential for using less accurate [[submarine]]-launched missiles would occur.

Another major shift in nuclear doctrine was the development of the [[submarine]]-based nuclear missile, the [[SLBM]]. It was hailed by military theorists as a weapon that would assure a surprise attack would not destroy the capability to retaliate, and therefore would make nuclear war less likely.

However, it was soon realised that submarines could 'sneak up' to the enemies shore and decrease the 'warning time', the time between detection of the launch and impact of the missile from as much as half an hour to under three minutes. This greatly increased the credibility of a 'surprise first strike' by one of the factions and theoretically made it possible to knock out or disrupt the [[chain of command]] before a counterstrike could be ordered. It enticed the notion that a nuclear war could be 'won' and this resulted not only in greatly increased tension but also in a dramatic increase in military spending. The submarines and their missile systems were very expensive (one fully equipped nuclear powered nuclear missile submarine could easily cost more than the entire [[GNP]] of a [[third world]] nation), but the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening the chain of command. As a result, military spending skyrocketed.

The fact remains that tactical use of nuclear weapons against military targets would have caused death, destruction, and hardship on an immense scale, and that even limited strategic use would have had a global impact. Even comprehensive [[civil defense]] efforts to protect civilian populations would only partially mitigate the catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare.

== Current concerns ==

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, conflict between the United States and [[Russia]] appears much less likely. Stockpiles of nuclear warheads are being reduced on both sides and tensions between the two countries have greatly reduced. The concerns of political strategists have now shifted to other areas of the world.

Current fears of nuclear war are mainly centred around [[India]] (first test [[May 18]], [[1974]], the "[[Smiling Buddha]]" test) and [[Pakistan]] (first test May [[1998]]), two nations whose majority [[religion|religions]] and histories, as well as a territorial dispute in [[Kashmir]] and mutual possession of substantial (though probably numbered in dozens rather than thousands) nuclear arsenals makes many extremely nervous. Both have waged several wars over the conflict in Kashmir and the region as a whole is considered highly volatile, with conflicts in [[Afghanistan]] and the [[Middle East]] considerably influencing Pakistani policy, and several assassinations of high-ranking government officials and continuing Hindu-Muslim incidents in [[India]] heightening both national and international tension.

Recent studies undertaken by the [[CIA]] cite the enduring Pakistani-Indian conflict as the most likely conflict escalating into nuclear war.

In the case of Pakistan, their unstable government and the threat of radical Islamists seizing power and thus control over the nuclear arsenal has raised additional fears, compounded by the fact that a senior member of the development program, [[Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood]], is a strong [[Taliban]] sympathizer.

Another flashpoint which has analysts worried is a possible conflict between the [[United States]] and the [[People's Republic of China]] over [[Taiwan]]. Although economic forces have decreased the possibility of military conflict, there remains the worry that increasing military buildup and a move toward [[Taiwan independence]] could spin out of control.

A third potential flashpoint lies in the [[Middle East]], where [[Israel]] is thought to possess on the order of between one and four hundred nuclear warheads (although this has never been officially confirmed). Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbors on numerous occasions, and its small geographic size would mean that in the event of future wars the Israeli military might have very little time to react to a future invasion or other major threat; the situation could escalate to nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios.

In addition, there is the worry that so-called [[rogue state]]s such as [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]] (see [[North Korea nuclear weapons program]]) may acquire nuclear weapons. [[Nuclear terrorism]] by non-state organisations could well be more likely, as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in kind. Geographically-dispersed and mobile [[terrorist|terrorist organization]]s are not so easy to discourage by the threat of retaliation. Furthermore, while the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, it greatly increased the risk that former Soviet nuclear weapons might become available on the [[black market]].

On a more positive note, [[South Africa]] declared after its transition from an [[apartheid]] regime that it had in fact produced about six crude nuclear weapons as a 'last-resort' weapon against a envisioned race war, but that they have now been destroyed. In fact the development laboratories (which are remarkably unsophisticated) and storage facilities have now become a sight-seeing tour.

''See also:'' [[Biological warfare]], [[Chemical warfare]], [[Conventional warfare]], [[Nuclear proliferation]], [[Nuclear arms race]], [[Weapons of mass destruction]], [[Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 | Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning legality of nuclear weapons]]

== Glossary ==

* '''[[MIRV]]''' -- Multiple Independent [[Re-entry vehicle|Re-entry Vehicle]]s, nuclear devices carried, usually ten or twelve at a time on a single ICBM, allowing a single launched missile to strike a handful of targets, and allowing a few missiles to strike several targets redundantly.

* '''[[SALT I]]''' -- '''Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty'''. A treaty signed by [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Leonid Brezhnev]] in 1972, limiting the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals.

* '''[[SALT II]]''' -- A treaty designed to further limit the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals.

* '''[[STrategic Arms Reductions Treaty|START]]''' -- [[STrategic Arms Reductions Treaty]] -- A treaty proposed by Ronald Reagan to reduce the numbers of missiles and warheads.

* '''[[START_II|START II]]''' -- A treaty signed by George H. W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin in January 1993 to ban the use of MIRVs.

* '''[[INF]]''' -- [[Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]], signed in 1987, which eliminated tactical ("battlefield") nuclear devices and GLCMs from Europe.

* '''[[GLCM]]''' -- Ground Launched Cruise Missile.

* '''[[ALCM]]''' -- Air Launched Cruise Missile.

* '''[[ICBM]]''' --Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

* '''[[SLCM]]''' -- Submarine Launched Cruise Missile.

* '''[[SLBM]]''' -- Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile.

* '''[[Ballistic missile]]''' -- A missile using a ballistic trajectory involving a significant ascent and descent including suborbital and partial orbital trajectories.

* '''[[Cruise missile]]''' -- A missile using a low altitude trajectory intended to avoid detection by radar systems. Cruise missiles have shorter range and lower payloads than ballistic missiles, usually, and are not known to carry [[MIRV]]s.

* '''[[Mutual assured destruction|MAD]]''' -- [[Mutual assured destruction]]. The doctrine of preventing nuclear war by creating a situation in which any use of nuclear weapons would result in the certain destruction of both the attacker and the defender.

* '''[[Anti-ballistic missile|ABM]]''' -- Anti-Ballistic Missile. Missiles designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles. Can also refer to the ABM treaty, signed by Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, which halted the development and use of such systems due to fears that such systems could counter the MAD scenario and, thereby, increase the likelihood that an ABM protected country would use their nuclear weapons aggressively.

* '''[[Strategic Defense Initiative|SDI]]''' -- [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], more commonly known as Star Wars. A system proposed by Ronald Reagan to use space-based systems to detect, intercept and destroy [[ICBM]]s and [[MIRV]]s. Criticized for its costs, doubts that it would be effective, and concerns that it would violate the ABM treaty and offset [[Mutual assured destruction|MAD]], it was not supported by the [[US Congress]] at that time.

== External links ==

* [http://HavenWorks.com/nuclear Nuclear News] at HavenWorks.com

* [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/kinuclearweapons/anwindex.html 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War] by Alan F. Philips, M.D.

[[de:Atomkrieg]]

[[ja:&#26680;&#25126;&#20105;]]

[[nl:Kernoorlog]]

[[simple:Nuclear war]]

[[sv:Kärnvapenkrig]]

[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]