Nuclear disarment

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While I like an idea of reducing nuclear arsenals, I don't think the world would be better off without it. There were many armed conflicts after 1945, but not another total war because of the nukes.

Discuss.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yeah. Look at the destruction to Europe from WWII. Now expand that conflict to a global scale. The arms race kept a massive, worldwide land war from erupting that would have killed millions (if not more).

[Cory]

I'd say that nuclear weapons saved the world from WWIII.

[TJ in Oregon]

Even if we wanted nuclear disarmament, it could never work because there's nothing to guarantee everyone else disarms when they say they're going to.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Even if we wanted nuclear disarmament, it could never work because there's nothing to guarantee everyone else disarms when they say they're going to.

As it was in real life.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Even if we wanted nuclear disarmament, it could never work because there's nothing to guarantee everyone else disarms when they say they're going to.

This is true.  We would have to send agents to the other countries to make sure that they're following through.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if we wanted nuclear disarmament, it could never work because there's nothing to guarantee everyone else disarms when they say they're going to.

This is true.  We would have to send agents to the other countries to make sure that they're following through.

And they would need to send agents here to make sure we're following thru.

[Redalgo]

I reckon disarmament would actually make the world a better place. Nuclear weapons did not prevent the continued outbreak of armed conflicts - whether minor or major in scale. Plenty of proxy wars were fought in far flung corners of the world, ethnic conflicts betwixt non-nuclear powers continued to occur, genocides still unfolded, and the Second Congo War during the '90s claimed millions of lives in Africa. Focusing on the nuclear powers in particular, the USA and USSR rather narrowly avoided an exchange of nuclear bombardments on more than one occasion and the destructive potential for such an onslaught makes even the bloodiest of conventional wars in history pale in comparison.

For nuclear deterrents to succeed in bringing about an end to major conflicts every country in the world needs to either have nuclear devices and means of reliably, swiftly delivering those devices to targets thousands of miles away or otherwise be under the umbrella of protection offered by a nuclear power. It does not seem that any nuclear powers tend to take a strong interest in extending such protection to LDCs in particular when there is nothing in it for them, and I reckon we can agree it would be a pretty bad idea to proliferate nuclear weapons and ICBM technologies so that most countries on the planet have at least a few of them in service. Virtually any armed confrontation could escalate into a wanton, mutual slaughter of millions even between the smallest of countries.

It would not matter if the deterrence works under ordinary circumstances because subterfuge and underhanded maneuvers could potentially be used by either state or non-state actors to - for their own benefit, obviously - set up other countries to partake in a nuclear confrontation by setting a device off at an opportune time and location. Even if we could enact measures to effectively safeguard against such ruses or at the very least ensure retaliation against the country of a provocative attack's origin, surely there would be terrorist groups capable of wresting control of at least a few of these weapons away from a LDC and, having no fixed, territorial location on a map to retaliate against, not be subject to the doctrine of MAD regardless of whether it otherwise generally works.

And to top it all off I must ask, what kind of righteous government would ever threaten to or actually intentionally kill tens of millions of innocent (and yes, most of them really are innocent) civilians to achieve their political aims? Hell - if I were in charge of a country and we got hit by nuclear weapons I would only order retaliatory strikes against military targets isolated from civilian populations. All it would take for a would-be aggressor to defeat such a conscience-driven regime as mine would be to nestle their bases in the hearts or peripheries of urban centers.

Personally, I would recommend proliferating ABM technology, offering to sell those missiles to any country that cannot afford to develop and fabricate their own, use treaties to scale down arsenals into the dozens rather than hundreds or thousands of nuclear devices, ban all forms of testing for nuclear weapons, try to convince countries to allow each others inspectors free access to verify compliance, and then eventually seek a worldwide treaty to ban them outright, with all nuclear powers getting rid of their last 1-20 or so devices at the same time. Likewise for radiological, biological, and chemical weapons. There may also soon come a time when restrictions on EMP weaponry and drones will be necessary, unfortunately. It seems countries that seek WMDs mostly don't want to be invaded and decisively trounced by overwhelmingly stronger opponents.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see the importance of making countries interdependent, both politically and economically, and establishing global institutions for maintaining peace and security.

[dead0man]

The US and Russia should have less, our allies should have more (so as to help shoulder the costs), but I think that statement is true for most aspects of our military.  Our allies rely on us too much....WAY too much in some aspects (air mobility is a big one).

[TNF]

Nuclear weapons did far less to prevent World War III than did international institutions and international law being put in place after World War II. The absence of an anarchical system, with heavy repercussions for any nations that violated the new international system, was probably what really stopped the United States and the Soviet Union from duking it out in the years after World War II. Well, that combined with extraordinary good luck on the part of both superpowers and a willingness to show restraint (it probably helped that the leaders of both states during the period in question were governed by veterans of the last world war).

Nuclear disarmament would not, in my opinion, cause World War III. It is imminently possible and perhaps should be pursued to prevent nuclear weapons or materials from getting into the hands of rogue states or non-state actors with an axe to grind. All in all, it is now in the best interest of the United States to drop our nuclear arsenal (provided that other powers follow suit) and move towards a world in which the atom is only used for peaceful purposes.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The biggest problem with nuclear nonproliferation is the fact that the knowledge and technology necessary to create nuclear bombs will always exist. The threat will always be there from external forces, so why would a country like the United States purposely render itself susceptible to these threats? I believe nuclear deterrence very much works when we're dealing with non-radicalized states. We may have been "close" to nuclear war at many points during the Cold War, but I honestly believe that the triggers never would have gotten pressed.

The real danger is the lack of security surrounding these weapons. Let the stable first world democracies of the world be the Nuclear Policemen of Earth... I don't care, and, in fact, I think it makes sense. I trust that nuclear weapons will be safe and secure in, say, the United States or the United Kingdom more than I'd trust them to be safe in the Ivory Coast. So one could say that America has "earned the right" to be nuclear policemen. I mean, when countries like Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons (whoops, too late) the odds that these things (and it only takes one!) could fall into the wrong hands are really disconcerting. And if even one bomb is used, nuclear deterrence goes out the window. I just can't foresee American nukes falling into terrorist hands.

So I guess my position is kind of like a selfish double-standard, but it just makes sense. Free countries with stable governments can, I think, be trusted with nuclear weapons. That said, we should probably do whatever we can to keep them out of smaller, "less free" countries. Nuclear security guarantees aren't super-rare, and I think that's the way to go for some of the world's smaller powers.

[kobidobidog]

I agree with nuclear disarmament.  I would like to see the dismantling of the legal sysatem and military as we know it too. A nation of jails is not a free nation. A nation of jails will think a big boom is good.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree with nuclear disarmament.  I would like to see the dismantling of the legal sysatem and military as we know it too. A nation of jails is not a free nation. A nation of jails will think a big boom is good.

I know that since you probably have a lot to say since you last posted here three months ago, but wouldn't it be easier if you left that poor dog alone than to go to jail and be cut off from the Internet from time to time?

[politicus]

The biggest problem with nuclear nonproliferation is the fact that the knowledge and technology necessary to create nuclear bombs will always exist. The threat will always be there from external forces, so why would a country like the United States purposely render itself susceptible to these threats? I believe nuclear deterrence very much works when we're dealing with non-radicalized states. We may have been "close" to nuclear war at many points during the Cold War, but I honestly believe that the triggers never would have gotten pressed.

The real danger is the lack of security surrounding these weapons. Let the stable first world democracies of the world be the Nuclear Policemen of Earth... I don't care, and, in fact, I think it makes sense. I trust that nuclear weapons will be safe and secure in, say, the United States or the United Kingdom more than I'd trust them to be safe in the Ivory Coast. So one could say that America has "earned the right" to be nuclear policemen. I mean, when countries like Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons (whoops, too late) the odds that these things (and it only takes one!) could fall into the wrong hands are really disconcerting. And if even one bomb is used, nuclear deterrence goes out the window. I just can't foresee American nukes falling into terrorist hands.

So I guess my position is kind of like a selfish double-standard, but it just makes sense. Free countries with stable governments can, I think, be trusted with nuclear weapons. That said, we should probably do whatever we can to keep them out of smaller, "less free" countries. Nuclear security guarantees aren't super-rare, and I think that's the way to go for some of the world's smaller powers.

Why the small criteria? It seems pointless. Would Bolivian nukes be a problem because its a small country? Would you trust the DRC to have nukes? (bigger population than Britain or France).

I think the security risk in a big, unstable country like Pakistan, Nigeria or a radicalized Iran can be just as big as in a smaller country.

[perdedor]

Considering the damage that one of these weapons can cause, there is no rationale for keeping an armament that numbers in the 1000s. It's unbecoming.

[dead0man]

And expensive.


But if the sh**t hits the fan, would you rather have 100 too many or be 5 short?

[perdedor]

And expensive.


But if the sh**t hits the fan, would you rather have 100 too many or be 5 short?

Again, considering the damage these modern nuclear weapons can cause (both from the initial impact and the long term radiological effects), I would rather we be short. A full scale nuclear war, though unlikely to occur, carries the potential of a nuclear winter and irreparable damage to natural resources. I'd like to think that with the amount of resources we've put into modernizing warfare, we have means of resolving violent conflict without leveling a heavily populated six mile radius.

[dead0man]

Right, which is why the odds of go nuts full unleash of all arsenals is unlikely even in any reasonable worst case scenario.  There is no good reason to nuke large population centers (unless they are also military targets like capitals often are).  As I said up thread, I agree we should have fewer and thankfully we are heading in that direction.  Mainly because they are a very expensive and, hopefully, pointless dick measuring contest.

but I'd still rather have a few more than we need versus not quiet enough.

[perdedor]

Right, which is why the odds of go nuts full unleash of all arsenals is unlikely even in any reasonable worst case scenario.  There is no good reason to nuke large population centers (unless they are also military targets like capitals often are).  As I said up thread, I agree we should have fewer and thankfully we are heading in that direction.  Mainly because they are a very expensive and, hopefully, pointless dick measuring contest.

but I'd still rather have a few more than we need versus not quiet enough.

I once read somewhere that detonating 13-16 nuclear weapons across the planet could cause a nuclear winter. Between the United States, China, Russia, and North Korea (supposedly)..this isn't a stretch of the imagination in a WWIII scenario.

If the nuclear weapon isn't going to be dropped on a population center, where else would it be dropped? It would seem a little silly if we were eliminating small military stations in the desert with nuclear weapons.

Overall, nuclear weapons are just too destructive.  I would rather haver this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleforce

[dead0man]

Right, which is why the odds of go nuts full unleash of all arsenals is unlikely even in any reasonable worst case scenario.  There is no good reason to nuke large population centers (unless they are also military targets like capitals often are).  As I said up thread, I agree we should have fewer and thankfully we are heading in that direction.  Mainly because they are a very expensive and, hopefully, pointless dick measuring contest.

but I'd still rather have a few more than we need versus not quiet enough.

I once read somewhere that detonating 13-16 nuclear weapons across the planet could cause a nuclear winter.

Yet thousands have been tested without that happening.  Have you ever seen the tests in space?  Eerily beautiful.  (poor Youtube video of one of them)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not all military stations are small is the obvious answer there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think nukes are as powerful as you (or, sadly, the conventional wisdom) thinks they are.  Nukemap is fun and informative!

[perdedor]

I wasn't able to locate that study and I found others that dispute it's claims, meaning that it was likely junk theory. Admittedly, my knowledge of nuclear weapons is limited. I did come across a study on the potential effects of 100 Hiroshima sized weapons detonated over the course of a regional conflict (concentrated area) that suggested significant ozone damage. Regardless of the weight it holds in an argument on nuclear disarmament, I found it to be an interesting read http://m.pnas.org/content/105/14/5307.full

I am still having a hard time fathoming a military installation operating on such a scale that it warrants the use of a nuclear weapon, given the radius of the blasts I tested on the Nukemap (which is a really awesome tool, actually - thank you for sharing!). Would you mind providing a theoretical example?

[dead0man]

Sure.  Where I'm at right now.  Stratcom is an obvious military target.  You couldn't get enough bombers here to stop our mission, but it could be hit by a standard warhead and Omaha would be, more or less, just fine.  You wouldn't want to be in the 50,000 people suburb that surrounds the Air Force Base, but a few miles up the road in Omaha and you'd just be wondering what that loud boom was.

Or Qinghe China, HQs of the PLA's Second Artillery Corps.  Or Russia's Black Sea Fleet.  Or Mecca. (JOKE!)  Sometimes a conventional cruise missile isn't enough.  Sometimes a squadron of B52s dropping conventional weapons isn't enough.

"When it Absolutely, Positively has to be completely destroyed overnight"


(keep in mind that most warheads are fairly "small", less than a single MT...sometimes MUCH less.  Nobody has 8MT warheads sitting on top of fueled missiles.  There just isn't a tactical use for anything that large....other than the previously mentioned dick measuring.)



Bottom line, nuclear weapons aren't quite the bogeyman we were lead to believe.  Yes, they are dangerous.  Yes, we shouldn't use them unless we absolutely have to, but using them, especially just a few of them wouldn't be the end of the world.  Sure, back in the 60s and 70s the US and USSR had a LOT of nukes and had the sh**t hit the fan, yeah, we'd all be pretty screwed.  It's not the 70s anymore.  We have a lot less nukes now and are operating under a different set of circumstances.  And again, I'm not suggesting we should start dropping the big boys the next time we decide to invade a nation of brown people.

[perdedor]

Sure.  Where I'm at right now.  Stratcom is an obvious military target.  You couldn't get enough bombers here to stop our mission, but it could be hit by a standard warhead and Omaha would be, more or less, just fine.  You wouldn't want to be in the 50,000 people suburb that surrounds the Air Force Base, but a few miles up the road in Omaha and you'd just be wondering what that loud boom was.

Or Qinghe China, HQs of the PLA's Second Artillery Corps.  Or Russia's Black Sea Fleet.  Or Mecca. (JOKE!)  Sometimes a conventional cruise missile isn't enough.  Sometimes a squadron of B52s dropping conventional weapons isn't enough.

"When it Absolutely, Positively has to be completely destroyed overnight"


(keep in mind that most warheads are fairly "small", less than a single MT...sometimes MUCH less.  Nobody has 8MT warheads sitting on top of fueled missiles.  There just isn't a tactical use for anything that large....other than the previously mentioned dick measuring.)



Bottom line, nuclear weapons aren't quite the bogeyman we were lead to believe.  Yes, they are dangerous.  Yes, we shouldn't use them unless we absolutely have to, but using them, especially just a few of them wouldn't be the end of the world.  Sure, back in the 60s and 70s the US and USSR had a LOT of nukes and had the sh**t hit the fan, yeah, we'd all be pretty screwed.  It's not the 70s anymore.  We have a lot less nukes now and are operating under a different set of circumstances.  And again, I'm not suggesting we should start dropping the big boys the next time we decide to invade a nation of brown people.

The bolded is concerning. Is there a military target that is so threatening that its worth eliminating at the cost of 50,000 lives? I couldn't fathom deploying that level of force on a people. It just seems so ham-fisted. Do you trust the governments of India and Pakistan with this level of power?

[anvi]

I would try to argue in favor of nuclear disarmament.  But since so many on this forum think dropping them on people the first time was a good idea, I'll let it go.

[dead0man]

The bolded is concerning. Is there a military target that is so threatening that its worth eliminating at the cost of 50,000 lives?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, of course.  If the target has the ability to hurt you real bad, then the target needs to be removed real quick.  If your enemy knew you wouldn't nuke valid targets if they were close to a city, wouldn't they just put everything close to a city?  It's like using a kid as a human shield when firing at the enemy.  Or some dude's backyard to fire your rocket at civilians.  Sometimes you can chose not to return fire, but other times you have no choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't trust Pakistan at all with anything.  They've repeatedly shown themselves to be asshats.  I've got much fewer issues with India.