[SIBO]

Does Possessing Nuclear Weapons make a country a great power?

Pakistan and North Korea have nukes, but most would not call them great powers.

Germany and Japan have no nukes, yet they are often called great powers.

What is the benefit of having nukes?

Is it strictly for defensive purposes so you have the means to strike back against any aggression?

For this you would need an ICBM though.

[Far-Right Sage]

This is an interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the comments of others as well, but I will just begin by saying none of the four aforementioned nations are today great powers. Two have only theoretical sovereignty, one is a failed state, and the other is plagued by cyclical domestic crisis owing to poor administration and isolated from the rest of the world with little influence on events beyond its borders.

[Travesty]

This is an interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the comments of others as well, but I will just begin by saying none of the four aforementioned nations are today great powers. Two have only theoretical sovereignty, one is a failed state, and the other is plagued by cyclical domestic crisis owing to poor administration and isolated from the rest of the world with little influence on events beyond its borders.

Germany is a greater power than Britain or France within the Eurozone and as a result it wields more political and economic influence in the world then they do, while France and Britain wield more military and soft, cultural and diplomatic power in the world. Britian and France are also not fully sovereign in many ways as they have to function within the EU and NATO framework.

The dictionary definition is:

a nation that has exceptional political influence, resources, and military strength

Germany obviously lacks military strength but makes up for it in political and economic influence. So the question is weather you can be a Great Power in the 21st Century without full sovereignty or exceptional military strength.

[SIBO]

This is an interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the comments of others as well, but I will just begin by saying none of the four aforementioned nations are today great powers. Two have only theoretical sovereignty, one is a failed state, and the other is plagued by cyclical domestic crisis owing to poor administration and isolated from the rest of the world with little influence on events beyond its borders.

I would say the theoretical sovereignty designation works for Germany but I believe is independent for the most part in terms of defense and foreign affairs, especially with the new Abe administration.

[foxdemon]

Does Possessing Nuclear Weapons make a country a great power?

No.

A nation needs a dominant economy, extensive industrialisation, ambition, force projection and other ways to donimate and thus be a great power.

Nukes are actually a way for small powers to rival large powers. Small nations can't beat large nations in a war of attrition, especially in the industrial age. Consider a mech division disembarking at a port. One nuke gets dropped in and a whole division is lost immediately. Even large powers can't absorb a lost rate that high.

What is the benefit of having nukes?

Is it strictly for defensive purposes so you have the means to strike back against any aggression?

For this you would need an ICBM though.

Nukes don't need to be delivered with ICBM's to be a credible deterant. The risk of massive lose presented to an enemy just by possesion is enough to cause large powers to hold off. So nukes present many advantages to small powers. The non-poliferation treaty is an attempt to protect the balance of power in the favour of large powers, by preventing small powers from gaining nukes, as this is considered more likely to result in stability.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I wouldn't say it makes them a great power but it does guarantee some degree of security against other nations that are great powers.

[layman]

Neither Germany, nor Japan have much hard power and basically rely on the US for defense.

The UK and France have similar conventional power but are fairly untouchable because of nukes. It would be extremely difficult to invade a country when you are certain to receive several nukes on to your major cities. Who would do such a thing. It’s basically unthinkable.

If I were in charge of UK defense then I would increase the nuclear deterrent at the cost of power projection and the Navy. I would invest heavily in air defense and ICBM's and hopefully expand this towards a fortress Europe.

[blackjack21]

Nukes are actually a way for small powers to rival large powers. Small nations can't beat large nations in a war of attrition, especially in the industrial age. Consider a mech division disembarking at a port. One nuke gets dropped in and a whole division is lost immediately. Even large powers can't absorb a lost rate that high.

Nuclear weapons have never been used in this way, however. The United States experimented with nuclear artillery and nuclear anti aircraft systems. Just outside of San Francisco, you can still see the old Nike Orion sites. They were to be used to engage Soviet air fleets with a nuclear blast. Crazy, huh?

The only actual military uses have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reason for their use was the expedient destruction of Japanese industrial production. The conventional bombing campaigns resulted in very high losses and marginal success. Nukes did in two sorties what would have taken hundreds of sorties otherwise. In military speak, nuclear weapons were a "force multiplier." They were indiscriminate however. By the Vietnam War, it was becoming obvious that expensive fighter bombers like the F-4 Phantom were not effective at things like taking out bridges, while older Soviet fighters were able to engage at close range. While the F-14 and F-15 platforms were designed to counter the limitations of the close-in fighting for advanced fighters, the laser guided bomb was designed to address the fact that the US was losing too many sorties trying to attack strategic targets ineffectually. Today's JDAMs give the military cheap precision. Today, you can take a $2000 MK-x dumb bomb, educate it with a JDAM kit and drop it on a specific target to within about 50 meters with high reliability.

Consequently, nuclear weapons are nearly worthless as a force multiplier against many first world countries. They are white elephant weapons. We have MOABs that are as powerful as Fat Man and Little Boy.

Countries like Pakistan and India seek them with the idea that they can prevent the other from attacking. The idea is that no nation with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked/invaded. They may have missed 9/11. Also, nuclear weapons certainly didn't stop the collapse of the French overseas empire. As aggressive weapons, I imagine if they were dropped in Islamabad or New Delhi, they would create political chaos. In the United States, really only Manhattan provides a rich target. Most production in the U.S. is highly de-centralized now, if not dependent significantly upon foreign countries. One of the big concerns with the Pentagon these days is their willingness to procure military supplies from rivals, if not enemies.

To compete against American industrial production, the military footprint required was like that of the Soviet Union.

The risk of massive lose presented to an enemy just by possesion is enough to cause large powers to hold off.

This is use of nuclear weapons in a nihilistic way: if you attack, we will kill huge numbers of civilians in your country. Whereas, during WWII and the Cold War, nuclear weapons were considered for strategic reasons (destroying industrial production en masse), today it's mostly just a terror weapon ("don't make me come unhinged and open up a can of nuclear whoop ass!").

Neither Germany, nor Japan have much hard power and basically rely on the US for defense.

True, but they in effect won WWII by losing it and obtaining economic hegemony at the expense of military hegemony. By contrast, the US is losing economic hegemony due to the expense of military hegemony and the outsourcing necessary to buy international peace. I see that coming to an end now, so I don't think peace and stability is going to be as prevalent in the future.

[foxdemon]

Nuclear weapons have never been used in this way, however. The United States experimented with nuclear artillery and nuclear anti aircraft systems. Just outside of San Francisco, you can still see the old Nike Orion sites. They were to be used to engage Soviet air fleets with a nuclear blast. Crazy, huh?

The only actual military uses have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reason for their use was the expedient destruction of Japanese industrial production. The conventional bombing campaigns resulted in very high losses and marginal success. Nukes did in two sorties what would have taken hundreds of sorties otherwise. In military speak, nuclear weapons were a "force multiplier." They were indiscriminate however. By the Vietnam War, it was becoming obvious that expensive fighter bombers like the F-4 Phantom were not effective at things like taking out bridges, while older Soviet fighters were able to engage at close range. While the F-14 and F-15 platforms were designed to counter the limitations of the close-in fighting for advanced fighters, the laser guided bomb was designed to address the fact that the US was losing too many sorties trying to attack strategic targets ineffectually. Today's JDAMs give the military cheap precision. Today, you can take a $2000 MK-x dumb bomb, educate it with a JDAM kit and drop it on a specific target to within about 50 meters with high reliability.

Consequently, nuclear weapons are nearly worthless as a force multiplier against many first world countries. They are white elephant weapons. We have MOABs that are as powerful as Fat Man and Little Boy.

Check out US studies that involved a nuclear opponent in the Korean peninsular. The results were quite discouraging for conventional commanders.

This is use of nuclear weapons in a nihilistic way: if you attack, we will kill huge numbers of civilians in your country. Whereas, during WWII and the Cold War, nuclear weapons were considered for strategic reasons (destroying industrial production en masse), today it's mostly just a terror weapon ("don't make me come unhinged and open up a can of nuclear whoop ass!").

Your looking at it from the small nation perspective. I was looking at it from the large power perspective, facing a small power with tactical nukes which can be used against forces in that theater. A leader of a large power doesn't want to take loses of that magnitude that quickly against some piss weak little nation the large power wants to push around for some sort of resource trade consessions or such like. Thus nukes, even tactical, are enough to keep large powers out of the face of small powers.

[Typhoon]

Does Possessing Nuclear Weapons make a country a great power?

I would say not necessarily as stated in the OP and after.

What is the benefit of having nukes?

Deterrence as the ultimate weapon and it demonstrates power which can translate into strength at the negotiating table and on the world stage. Going nuclear greatly improved the security of North Korea and gave it a lot of extra moves in negotiations, even though the nation does not have a credible delivery system like an ICBM.

I find it very difficult to rank nations as great powers other than the obvious one at the top the United States, though I would not be inclined to deny Germany or Japan great power status due to sovereignty issues or comparative military strength, they are still top ten in my book.

If I were in charge of UK defense then I would increase the nuclear deterrent at the cost of power projection and the Navy. I would invest heavily in air defense and ICBM's and hopefully expand this towards a fortress Europe.

Do people sign up to the idea that more nuclear weapons equals more power or security, I don't. In my book the deterrent is adequate for the job and though I don't believe the UK needs to replicate every capability the US has, as it seems to do at the moment I would be against further cuts to the forces, they are hollowed out enough as it is.

Problem with nukes is that ideally you don't want to rely on them alone, the situation of Russia in the late 90's for example.

By contrast, the US is losing economic hegemony due to the expense of military hegemony and the outsourcing necessary to buy international peace. I see that coming to an end now, so I don't think peace and stability is going to be as prevalent in the future.

Considering Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc the period has not been particular peaceful, I welcome the return of a multi-polar world myself.

[Varax]

Well there's the semantic argument over what constitutes a "great power". I'd argue that nuclear weapons in themselves don't necessarily in themselves make a country a great power (which is the case in North Korea and Pakistan) but nuclear weapons are certainly an important component of being a great power. In more practical terms they're the ultimate deterrent since no one in their right mind would launch a full scale attack on a country with nuclear weapons and it makes it much easier for a country to have a truly independent foreign policy.

With Germany and Japan they are both certainly major powers economically, but not so much militarily so one could argue how much they qualify as "great powers". Again with the notion of independent foreign policy, one could easily question just how independent they have been permitted to be in the post WW2 world order. Germany in addition to their economic clout are very influential now in the EU, and particularly the Eurozone. Japan is now attempting to be more independent and perhaps build up its military a bit in the face of growing challenges from China and the shifting climate of the East Asian political space.

So in short, not necessarily, but it is one of many factors. I'd say you need both economic "soft" power and military "hard" power to truly be a great power and many of the countries discussed in this thread are examples that meet one or several criteria but not all of them.

[park]

Of course,try to attack a nuclear power.They are untouchable

[Technology]

A great defensive power is not necessarily a great attacking power, so when everyone has nukes the possession of them does not allow you much leverage over other nations. Power is still about projection.

[oppose_obama]

simple question, do you consider pakistan, israel, north korea, or india a great power? hell do you even consider france a great power?

[Political Interest]

Nuclear weapons do not make a state a great power. However most great powers have them. Neither Pakistan or North Korea are great powers. They are both very strong military players in their regions, though. Having said that, neither is anything like the United States or former Soviet Union.

The benefit of nuclear weapons is that they decrease the likelihood that any state will be willing to declare war on you. This is why smaller countries seek them because it allows them to avoid being invaded by larger powers. It is the only reason any small country will seek them in this day and age.

When they were first developed in the 1940s they had the purpose of being used offensively. They could be employed against states which did not possess them in order to force them to capitulate into surrender. Now that they have become widespread and due to MAD this can no longer happen.

Hence the pursuit of nuclear weapons is more of a defensive measure and countries which develop them can be far from great powers.

[bsl]

I wouldn't say that it makes a State a great power, however it do gives him some. The most debated countries so far, in this topic, are North Korea and Pakistan, and all of us know that both of them aren't key world players but they do have enough influence to do several sorts of things, particularly in their region, for example the North Korea ignoring all sanctions that are imposed agaisnt it and still maintaining its nuclear program etc.

This thinking, in my view, leads us to the question: do WMD makes a country untouchable?

The first thing that comes up to my mind is an autor called Hedley Bull in the book 'The anarchical society', there is one part in it that he talks about the human weaknesses and how we realized from fragile we are. Nuclear weapons reminds us of that, he argues that its use is unbearable and once all the countries noticed that, its use became only coercitive in the political affairs.

That said, and going back to countries such as North Korea, it doesn't matter if the country has enough power projection to attack the US, the matter in the case is how much damage it can do? You can invade it, but you still won't be capable of saving South Korea if they actually keep their promise and rase it.

Fear, the fear of human loss, is the only tool that weak countries can input through its use in my view and they can do it only once, because after the first time they use a nuclear bomb agaisnt another country, it's pretty sure they are going to be whipped out. But as long as you don't, you still have the bargain of being feared due the fact that you can be nuts!

[Typhoon]

Fear, the fear of human loss, is the only tool that weak countries can input through its use in my view and they can do it only once, because after the first time they use a nuclear bomb against another country, it's pretty sure they are going to be whipped out.

This is quite a neat effect for nuclear weapons, for example although North Korea has the bomb it has not been in too much of a hurry to try to use its nuclear arsenal to remove sanctions placed upon it. So although nuclear weapons can guarantee the survival of the state I would say they do not make the country untouchable as economic and political sanctions are still possible. This is as true for the US and Russia as it is for North Korea which is why we don't seem to get nuclear blackmail very often.

[Igor Antunov]

As said above, nuclear weapons are a great stabiliser, because they offer up a decisive detterent without offering up a realistic offensive scenario unless your opponent does not have nukes to retaliate with. Thus no country should have them OR failing that every country should have them OR alternatively only the UN should have them.

[Typhoon]

Thus no country should have them OR failing that every country should have them OR alternatively only the UN should have them.

I do actually wonder where the sweet spot is for nuke ownership, is it a case that everyone should have one as some nations don't seem to want them and there's always the argument that some states are too unstable for nuclear weapons. Would too many nuclear weapons eventually be counterproductive? I can see the UN route being difficult to manage as it requires putting trust in someone else judgement, but them so does any nuclear umbrella.

I would say at the moment that at least all nation capable of conducting a world war should be deterred.

[foxdemon]

^

Were it the case that all states had to have nukes, then possession of nukes would become definiate of state status. That is, we would talk of nuclear states rather than nation states or city states. Certainly such a state of affairs would make an intersting back ground for a sci fi novel.