Why don't the U.S. and other nuclear nations disarm too?

Suicide PAct is perhaps the wrong term. I don't think any of them want to die, , but the effect is similar, should any of them go down the rest are going to end up going with them.

Perhaps it could be better termed a klatchian stand off. None of the people involved can dare to be the first to disarm. After all, if MAD is the only thing between the world and nuclear holocaust, any hint that it might be possible to initiate a crippling first strike will throw the whole thing out the window.

And while what you say is perfectly reasonable, wars don't start because everyone involved is reasonable.

Furthermore, the wider the spread of nuclear weapons, the more likely they'll fall into the hands of a leader for whom the interest of the country is not their primary concern.

But while the instinct of self preservation works in a limited pool the larger the pool gets the more likely it is to fail.

Imagine if you gave three people shotguns and put them in a room, MAD wold probably definately apply. However if you gave 30, or 300, or 3000 people shotguns and put them in a room, chances are much higher that shooting will start.

And unlike the situation I describe, a nation state with the proper resources can easily fabricate nuclear weapons.

I wonder if you somehow imagine a limited nuclear exchange as acceptable, since that is something which MAD does not address.

 

So, how do you decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?

Here we have a quandary. If every country in the world had WMD's, then the world would be a dangerous place, as farraday said. Therefore, the best thing would be if no one had them. But who would give them up? Thus, the middle solution would be to halt the proliferation of them. But what right does the U.S. (or even the UN) have telling an "innocent" country to not have WMD's? The only countries they can push around are ones that have already been shown to be aggressive, like Iraq. But going by that standard, EVERY country in the world is guilty to some degree or another. So what do we do?

This is a question not easily answered.

As for the original question - "Why don't the U.S. and other nuclear nations disarm too?" - this is much easier to answer. The answer is NOT that the U.S. is the "good guy" or some BS like that. The answer is simple: The U.S. and other nuclear nations aren't disarming because they don't want to.

 

"Thus, the middle solution would be to halt the proliferation of them. But what right does the U.S. (or even the UN) have telling an "innocent" country to not have WMD's?"


You're missing the point. The point is that the world collectively realised the 'middle way', and countries voluntarily signed the NPT. In return the countries with nuclear technology are supposed to help non-weaponised countries with nuclear technology and expertise, and provide inducements and general stability (and ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREATY), so that nations do not feel the need to embark upon arms races.

The US and other nuclear nations are enforcing the NPT because it becomes useless otherwise, and that leads directly to the worst-case: wide proliferation. The 'right' is derived from voluntary commitment to the NPT and international nuclear framework.

 

With the point that the more widespread nuclear proliferation becomes, the less stable the system becomes, I can't disagree.

I do not consider limited nuclear exchange viable, if just because of the rationalization factor it would lend to the instable leaders and governments.

I think the key factors to preventing nuclear strikes today are the prevention of weapon proliferation through force and threat thereof, and also through improving intelligence assets to locate and identify those people who arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

My main point was that in the bipolar structure that birthed it, MAD was quite effective. With the emergence of a unipolar system, questions do grow as to its relevance and applicability. However, I still question that there is a superior alternative readily available today.

.....
As for turning arms over to the UN, we might as well just dump them in the Sun. By its very makeup, the UN could never sanction the use of nuclear weapons. What majority would they need for that? 2/3? 3/4? I think not. So turning them over to the UN would simply mean putting the things in storage forever.

As to trusting the UN with such an enormous security risk, I only trust an organization that makes Libya the chair of the Human Rights Committee as far as I can kick it.

 

Europe starts talking tough on Proliferation

IS THE European Union at last girding itself to cope forcefully with new threats in a dangerous world? Having hitherto prided themselves chiefly on their soft power, EU foreign ministers this week agreed that, when diplomatic efforts to deal with weapons of mass destruction fail, ?coercive measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments, and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned.?

This tougher talk is in part aimed at repairing the rifts that emerged both within Europe and with the United States over the war in Iraq. But it is also belated recognition that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to carry them damages Europe's security just as surely as America's.

...Iran's evasions are indeed extensive. The IAEA report mentions the building of a sophisticated uranium-enrichment plant, supposedly without any prior testing of its centrifuge technology; Iran's intention to build a heavy-water research reactor (able to produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium as a fissile core for bombs); its failure to tell the agency it had imported 1.8 tonnes of natural uranium and what it then did with some now missing uranium hexafluoride that could be used to test centrifuges; its production of uranium metal, used in bomb-making, but not needed for reactors Iran has planned; and its refusal last week to allow IAEA inspectors to take samples at the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran, where some of the centrifuge parts were made.

What is to be done? The EU would prefer more time for dialogue. Iran was not expected to be declared formally in ?non-compliance? with its obligations this week, but America wants pressure kept on Iran to meet the IAEA's concerns. Its next report is not due until September, but America called for the board to meet in special session before then, if need be. Trying to avoid another damaging split among its allies, Britain wants its EU partners to tell Iran to do what the IAEA asks of it, quickly, or face tougher action.

Keeping everyone in step in dealing with proliferation in general and Iran in particular will not be easy. The tougher EU language will nonetheless be a welcome surprise in Washington, where the Bush team had begun to despair of Europe's feebleness on such issues. Even those administration officials hostile to other sorts of international entanglements are determined to see the NPT and similar treaties more strictly enforced. Last week America started informal discussions on interdicting shipments of illicit weapons with ten other countries, including Australia and Japan, as well as Britain, France, Germany and others. This week the EU said it was ready to explore new UN resolutions to help clamp down on such trade.

But the EU's new determination to tackle such problems could yet falter. Germany at first refused even to discuss any document on proliferation that made mention of the use of force. France, however, despite its opposition over Iraq, takes weapons proliferation much more seriously. It leaned on Germany hard.

Not before time. If Europeans want to be listened to on the big issues, argues Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform in London, they need a more constructive and coherent approach.

 

" Don't we already have enough nukes in our arsenal to blow up the earth several times?"

Umm, what exactly do you mean by "blow up the earth". If you actually mean destroy the earth you are greatly mistaken.

 

Umm, what exactly do you mean by "blow up the earth". If you actually mean destroy the earth you are greatly mistaken.

No not really. Nuclear bombs can change the weather pattern, activate long slumbering fault-lines causing major Earthquakes, make the world inhabitale, essentially the world will be destroyed. And it is possible, however unlikely that a missle can hit the fault line just right that causes the world to implode, there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary.

 

As for turning arms over to the UN, we might as well just dump them in the Sun. By its very makeup, the UN could never sanction the use of nuclear weapons. What majority would they need for that? 2/3? 3/4? I think not. So turning them over to the UN would simply mean putting the things in storage forever.

a very good point in a very good post.

i've been thinking about Iran more and more lately and the demonstrations there. i've been wondering if the President's praise and approval of those demonstrations is not so much directed at supporting the idea of free speech and democracy, but as a way of quietly asserting that there might be internal pressures applied to Iran to force them to capitulate on the non-proliferation issue. does the political unrest make for an easier or more difficult situation in fulfilling the goal of non-proliferation?

 

"No not really. Nuclear bombs can change the weather pattern, activate long slumbering fault-lines causing major Earthquakes, make the world inhabitale, essentially the world will be destroyed. And it is possible, however unlikely that a missle can hit the fault line just right that causes the world to implode, there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary."


I am not saying that Nuclear bombs could not kill most of the human population. But I am saying that quite a bit of life would survive and the world would not be destroyed.

For instance the eruption of the volcano Tambora was roughly the equivilent of 10,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Also the Tunguska impact in 1908 was nearly 20 Megatons! Far larger than nuclear bombs. Not to mention that the impact that killed the Dinosaurs I've head is estmated to have been over 10 MILLION times that of the entire world's nuclear aresenal.

Did things die? Yes. Did life go on? Of course.

 

Still, there is no compelling reason why states need nuclear weapons, except to protect themselves from other states with nuclear weapons; an asinine circular argument.

E_S

 

Ender_Sai, the same could be said about the entire military, not just the nukes.

 

Actually ender if the only reason to ahve nukes is because someone else has them they could not have bene invented at all.

 

Jediflyer - perhaps, perhaps not. The human cost of a nuclear weapon distances itself from a military.

farraday - Why did the Russians push so hard to create a nuke? The American monopoly. Why did other nations develope them? Insecurity. Now, nuclear nations will not disarm fully unless forcibly done so - for fear of the other nuclear nations.

E_S

 

For someone with a deep understanding of the complex realm of international politics you seem to be using a very simplistic theory here.

Once the existence of the nuclear bomb happens, it becomes impossible for it not to proliferate. Once something is know to be posisble it can be duplicated or imagineered or whatever you want to call it.

Despite what you seem to want to believe it is not something you can just stop. Thats what the history of the wrrld has taught us more then anything, science progresses forward, trying to stop or reverse it will only cause your best and brightest to move other places to perform their work.

You honestly think if the US had destroyed it's nuclear program in 1946 the Russians wouldn't have bothered making their own?


Naivete Ender?

 

farraday, I'm talking in a modern context. In the modern, essentially unipolar world, there is no compelling reason why states should have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with any nuclear policy. Doesn't mean that I don't understand the strategic implications of nuclear weapons; the reality is one thing and what I'd ideally choose is another.

However, my post which started this mini-debate revolved around the idea that in a modern context, in a "New World Order" world, nuclear weapons have almost outlived their usefulness. To use them would be both genocide and then suicide. You also made an comment to that effect.

But the realistic outcome of disarmament is a slow, and frustrating ride. Sure. It doesn't mean my opinion that nukes have no compelling reason for existing isnt' without merit.

To summarise:

1) Ender says nukes = bad and irrelevant
2) Ender acknowledges that nukes had their place in history
3) Ender accepts the reality of disarmament is far more unwelcoming that the ideal world he imagines.

Fair 'nuff?

E_S

 

Except while the world in unipoler individual aprts have their own rivalries without regard to the whole.


Or do you really believe India and Pakistan got nukes because they needed to protect themselves from the US?

Hogwash.

Despite what you both pretend and deny, the world isn't the US's in whole.

 

No, you misread me.

The Soviets developed theirs out of reaction to the American monopoly.

Other nations developed their out of insecurity. Insecurity about, for example, the Russians, or the Chinese (partially for India), or for their regional image not being what they want it to be. Nations developed and proliferated nuclear weapons out of some sort of insecurity. Some, like North Korea, made an effort to develope them in reaction to the percieved threat of the US, undoubtedly.

E_S

However, Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons and if you want to try and argue it you can spend 17 years in an Israeli jail, (11 in solitary confinement).

 

Ender if you really think that's the only reason Russians developed nuclear weapons you are delusional.


Stalin could not have not tried to fabricate a nuke once he knew it was possible, it wouldn't have been possible for his mind to not grab for another bit of power.

The development of nukes in any case was unavoidable and whatever reasons you want to pretend people try for them the real reason is to muscle their way into the club of world powers when otherwise they'd be unable to even reach the doorbell.

 

Which has everything to do with insecurity, farraday. States are, as I said, insecure about their geopolitical image so they develop this weapons as a form of muscle. We're saying the same thing here.

Whilst was you said about Stalin was certainly true it had as much to do with Russia's fears of the America monopoly (and therefore the assumed intent to use it on Russia) as did Stalin's power hungry personality.

E_S

 

Ah yes insecurity, a nice vague word.

It could mean there was a threat to their naitonal security or that they just want to show what big guys they are. It could even mean they want them just because everyone else has them.

Why not just say 'because'?

 

Here's a reason why the United States shouldn't disarm: my dad will lose his job, along with several other sub captains.

 

I'm in agreement with farraday on this. If "insecurity" is to be given such a blanket definition, then one could classify nearly all international actions as caused by some form of insecurity or other.

Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 was not a biproduct of German insecurity with the threat of continued Polish independence. Greed and power-lust were to blame. Much as they were when Russia built atomic weapons.

 

You guys haven't read Freud eh?

Seriously, I admit it was a touch vague. I didn't have time to go into it, so I'll try and expand on that at sometime, 'k?

E_S

 

You guys haven't read Freud eh?

Yeah but he kept babbling, I think it had something to do with loving his mother.

 

It takes little more intelligence than to read him to disregard him.

I suggest Le Bon, or Jung.