The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Is nuclear disarmament worthwhile?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Kevin Rudd is spending some time making various grandiose claims he will probably never follow up on at the moment, while planning his honeymoon period as Prime Minister when he hasn't quite done enough yet for things to come back and bite him in the ass.
One of these has been a call for nuclear disarmament, to "rid the world of these terrible weapons".
I can't help but think that this doesn't actually make sense. The existence of nuclear weapons has by all accounts ensured that the superpowers never came to any direct conflicts over the past 50 years for the simple fact that a relatively small nuclear arsenal checks an incredibly large military (or at least, the ability of a country to exercise it to defend itself).
Nuclear weapons are so paramount to world security that when the US wants to build an anti-ballistic missile system there is active protest on the basis that it would upset the balance of MAD and cause another arms race.
I see a strong argument for non-proliferation in many cases, simply because ideological rulers are of significant concern as is the safeguards and other measures of their launch systems but the fact remains that The Bomb and a suitably reliable delivery system is quite possibly one of the most cost-effective defenses a country can buy (presuming of course, that they indicate to the world they can launch quickly - the old "first strike" issue).
Reducing the number of active "ready-to-fire" nuclear weapons is certainly a decent goal, but more from a worst-case scenario perspective then anything else - trying to reduce the damage caused by some hypothetical exchange of munitions. If anything, there is a practical concern that less developed nations with nuclear weapons and attempting to build delivery systems should be aided in having the technology that safeguards their launch protocols to the relevant authorities.
tl;dr - Is full nuclear disarmament a good idea? How much do we practically gain from partial disarmament? Is non-proliferation a practical idea, or more of a feel good measure with regards to treaties and would we be better served by not posturing at people such that they feel they should arm themselves in such a way?
One of these has been a call for nuclear disarmament, to "rid the world of these terrible weapons".
I can't help but think that this doesn't actually make sense. The existence of nuclear weapons has by all accounts ensured that the superpowers never came to any direct conflicts over the past 50 years for the simple fact that a relatively small nuclear arsenal checks an incredibly large military (or at least, the ability of a country to exercise it to defend itself).
Nuclear weapons are so paramount to world security that when the US wants to build an anti-ballistic missile system there is active protest on the basis that it would upset the balance of MAD and cause another arms race.
I see a strong argument for non-proliferation in many cases, simply because ideological rulers are of significant concern as is the safeguards and other measures of their launch systems but the fact remains that The Bomb and a suitably reliable delivery system is quite possibly one of the most cost-effective defenses a country can buy (presuming of course, that they indicate to the world they can launch quickly - the old "first strike" issue).
Reducing the number of active "ready-to-fire" nuclear weapons is certainly a decent goal, but more from a worst-case scenario perspective then anything else - trying to reduce the damage caused by some hypothetical exchange of munitions. If anything, there is a practical concern that less developed nations with nuclear weapons and attempting to build delivery systems should be aided in having the technology that safeguards their launch protocols to the relevant authorities.
tl;dr - Is full nuclear disarmament a good idea? How much do we practically gain from partial disarmament? Is non-proliferation a practical idea, or more of a feel good measure with regards to treaties and would we be better served by not posturing at people such that they feel they should arm themselves in such a way?
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
yes. Well, humans anyway, i think roaches survive fallout so they might be a bit luckier. The US has about 7500warheads, i think russia has in the realm of 5000.
edited for slightly more accurate numbers.
The Cold War wasn't exactly fun times.
Not to mention that the Cuban missle crisis was pretty intense. It may not even have been the closest we came to nuclear war, either--there was an instance where an unannounced weather balloon / satellite launch in Scandinavia actually tripped Soviet warning systems up to the point where the operator in charge was supposed to launch a retaliatory strike. He refused, fortunately.
Pop goes the world.
I always thought it was due to the concept of nuclear winter. Basically, after <x> amount of nukes detonate, enough radiation and dust go around killing all plant life and algae. Dust blocks out the sun, ozone gets sodomized, all sorts of harmful chemicals get in the air (from vaporized cities), radiation kills everything, etc.. Even though most people are still alive after the dust settles after a couple of weeks, we're SOL without food or breathable oxygen being renewed. Supposedly the US alone has enough nukes to cause this <y> number of times.
Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia. So, totally fucked.
In that, yes, if they were all gone from the entire planet, it'd likely be great...but seeing as that's never going to happen, it makes more sense to approach the problem from the perspective that total disarmament is not going to happen.
Our current failure to even pretend to disarm our nuclear weapons is actively threatening the NPT. One of its key bargains is that those countries without nuclear weapons agree not to pursue a nuclear weapons program so long as the nuclear weapon states push for disarmament. As of late, we haven't been making that push. The 2002 US Security Strategy even called for new nuclear technologies and weapons that could hit hard and buried targets. If we renege on our NPT obligations, that could pose a threat to the entire Non-Proliferation Regime at some point in the future. Iran and North Korea have already deduced that the bargains of the NPT aren't really all they're cracked up to be. Theoretically, the entire treaty could fracture if we keep weakening it by not fulfilling our obligations. The NPT is already being stressed because of the failures with India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and Iran. If we don't keep up the pretense of disarmament, even if it's currently not a practical endgoal, the NPT will weaken further. Should the treaty break, any number of countries could go nuclear in a number of weeks. And a world with more nuclear weapon states is a more dangerous world.
There's a large (and unfair) power discrepancy between nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. By any strategic assessment, scores of countries around the world should be pushing for nuclear weapons to get that sort of status. Only the NPT has kept the number of nuclear weapon states to 8 or 9, and not the 30-40 that was envisioned in the 60s. As it stands right now, we're seriously botching our NPR obligations by not even pushing towards any sort of disarmament, as we're obligated to do as part of the NPT. If we don't disarm eventually, then we'll have gone back on our bargain that's keeping non-nuclear weapon states from pursuing nuclear weapons.
tl;dr - unless we disarm, others may get nuclear weapons of their own. The former is safer than the latter. Non-proliferation can be enforced through the IAEA, if it's given sufficient funds and powers. The US strategic forces don't really deter anyone anymore.
You're right about nuclear winter being the main killer on a global scale. Initial casualties would be around the ground zero's and the direction the wind was blowing the particles/fallout - that wouldn't amount to a high percentage of the world's population, although many deaths of course. But the effects of the nuclear winter would not be instantly killing or stop the supply of oxygen. To stop the renewal of oxygen the entire biosphere would have to be destroyed, and that would take massive times the nuclear arsenals at present. In other words you'd most likely have to get rid of the protection of the atmosphere for that to happen, most oxygen come from bacteria and algaes which are more durable and widespread than say the rainforests. Remember that the biosphere wasn't destroyed by the huge asteroid that most likely killed of the dinosaurs - the kinetic energy of that and others like it surpasses the combined power of every nuke in the world by 'n' times millions.
A nuclear winter would destroy much of the larger plantlife though, especially farming and stuff man dependant. Animal life, also. And regions of massive fallout would be more completely wiped out that others.
It would certainly wipe most people out though by famine, disease, fallout, cold, lack of sun etc. Like any other ice-age, but globally.
Plus, more bombs in poorer countries means bigger chance that the bomb gets to people who are actually crazy enough to use it.
I for one maintain that, if the USSR and the West ever came to blows, at some part someone in the american gouverment would have said "Wiping out all of humanity because there are some russian tanks running through european fields? Fuck that.". On the other hand, the russians always had to wonder if the west was bluffing or actually serious in its promise to escalate to full nuclear warfare the second the war breaks out. Because the moment they assume that you are bluffing, your entire nuclear arsenal is pretty much worthless, since your only option - in case of war - would be to either type GG or press the game over button.
From a detached and very cynical viewpoint, the first day of WWIII would have been a very interesting day indeed.
The decision to use nuclear weapons would have been largely automated. The US had positioned nuclear forces on the border of Western Europe so that had there been a Soviet nuclear strike or even a conventional invasion, those countries would be defended--automatically, without any judgment calls.
And by the '60s neither side was really bluffing anymore. There was just an accepted common knowledge that both sides possessed the fully automated second-strike capabilities to make any nuclear war strategically impossible to win. And the Kennedy administration allowed for a flexible response for a conflict outside of Europe without using nuclear weapons, so the Soviets never worried too much that minor aggressions would be met with immediate massive retaliation. Once the Cold War really got under way, there was never very much Soviet consternation over whether the Americans were "bluffing" or not. Both sides understood the situation pretty well (with the possible exception of the 1983 War Scare).
Not really. It depends on whether nuclear winter occurs, and the current consensus is that it doesn't. There's also the possibility that it could thin the atmosphere, but the evidence for that is tenuous.
Basically, there's enough to cause the greatest tragedy in human history, probably enough to cause centuries-long disruption of human civilization, but not enough to sanitize the planet.
The real debate centers on whether or not nuclear deterrence is a stabilizing factor or intrinsically dangerous. That usually revolves around "accident" and "stupidity" contingencies.
The only obligation the NPT gives nuclear states with regard to disarmament is the vaguely worded instruction for all nuclear states to pursue disarmament in good faith. This has only been possibly for like 20 years, and it is not solely an American burden, and it's not something the US can up and lead by example. Disarmament has to be a multilateral commitment and that doesn't seem likely right now. The NPT basically leaves the problem of disarmament for some future treaty to handle.
I don't know what amount of funding would give the IAEA the ability to deter North Korea.
I guess I'm saying that there's an optimal nuke-having level, and the US still exceeds it. If we can 'spend' our extras on convincing other countries to reduce their stockpiles, it seems like a win-win for the human race.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
That was whole reason for France and Britain developing their own nuclear arsenals as you'll notice that they're far too small to do any real damage to the U.S.S.R. - their main purpose was to compell the U.S. to attack. Britain and France could throw their couple hundred warheads at Moscow, forcing America to essentially "go big or go home" - allow the conflict to go nuclear and do nothing, potentially finding itself on the receiving end of a general Soviet retaliatory strike, or throw its weight behind the attack and make sure it worked.
Ironically, it appears that the real danger of nuclear weapons comes from those nations with fewer of them as opposed to the degree of stability created by those with lots.
Not to say of course that the Cold War did much to generate peace - it only stopped "Big-Big" wars, "Big-Small" and "Small-Small" wars were largely unaffected, and in some cases were certainly made worse as they became outlets for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. when unable to otherwise pursue their objectives . . . but the same stuff still happened before 1945 too.
The whole NPT is vaguely worded, and for it to be maintained its participants have to act on their own accord to fulfill their obligations. And considering that 95% of the remaining active nuclear weapons are still Russian or American (with considerably more being American), it seems like only America can lead by example. It doesn't have to be a complete disarmament right now. Just begin the process, to at least maintain the illusion that we're pursueing disarmament.
As for North Korea: a strong NPT, with strong threats of sanctions, and strong multilateral pushes for negotiations had been successful in the past and could have been successful more recently. Perhaps these countries would be more enticed by what the NPT offers if they power discrepancy between nuclear and non-nuclear states weren't so large? More support for the IAEA and NPT with respect to Iran may still be able to work with that country as well.
And I maintain that American strategic forces aren't deterring anybody. Anyone with strategic forces that can reach us doesn't have to be deterred, and we're capable of deterring non-NPT nuclear states by our conventional strength alone. So why keep our weapons around, when they only decrease our security and weaken the NPT?
99 Red-balloons floating in the summer sky.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
It was actually announced to the meteorological department (or something of that kind) of the USSR but they somehow made fail to deliver the notice to where it would be needed.
I wonder what kind of punishment that operator got though... he may have saved us from a nuclear war but I think they didn't weigh that along with him breaking direct orders... being reds and all...
The problem with Iran getting nukes is not that Iran would actually use them, because nobody in a position to issue such an order is actually "batshit insane". I don't think Ahmanijihad is batshit insane, either - he wouldn't issue an action that would guarantee the US to come in and fuck his shit up. There's little reason to believe that any world leader in a position to imminently acquire nukes is that flavor of insane.
Using nukes = US wipes you off the map. Period. What the hell is the point?
We don't want nations to get nukes because it allows them to strong-arm other nations. Yeah, they almost certainly won't use nukes, but what if. It grants them... not quite legitimacy, but bargaining power of a sort we don't want them to have. Also, the more tin-pot dictatorships that acquire nukes, the more likely some rogue organization will get their hands on some. Any nation that didn't want to get spanked would be unlikely to give their nukes to terrorists, because that stuff can be easily traced. But accidents happen, and as our adventures in Iraq showed, oppressive dictators don't always have the best control of their underlings, or the best grasp of their own military status.
As to actual disarmament, sure, to an extent. A few nukes is, honestly, kinda useful in the hands of relatively responsible nations like the US, the UK, Russia, and so on. Keeps everyone honest and healthily scared of getting too frisky. Tens of thousands of nukes, not so much. But in the current geopolitical climate, the US and Russian stockpiles are far from a serious threat. The cold war is over.
I don't think I would say Russia is a responsible nation. Since the Soviet Union collapsed they have been financially unable to keep up their security programs. With programs at a shell of their former selves their information is being pilfered by other countries. Right now Russia is the biggest reason that Nuclear bomb info is being leaked.
making a nuclear weapon, scientifically speaking, is not difficult. It's a relatively simple physics demonstration. Acquiring the necessary materials is much more difficult.
I'm not too well versed in the science of making a nuclear bomb, but I do know that it takes a shit ton (technical term :P) of calculations to get it right. To produce those calculations would cost a country tons of money. If they steal the data and calculations from another country then they just saved themselves "X" amount of dollars in research and development.
edit: I think the biggest threat Russia poses right now is that the pathetic state of their nation makes it more likely that dangerous materials will be passed off to rogue nations or organizations while nobody is looking.
[cite]? I could have sworn all the recent nuclear enrichment technology leaks/sales were from Turkey, and can't find anything on Russia being the source of it.
Here is something that someone might find fun:
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
This is the work of some quick google-fu:
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/pubs/ib45.html
I was originally presented with Russia and nuke tech with a documentry, but I cannot remember the doc for the life of me...
EDIT: found another source http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030327.htm
Pretty much.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
edit: I just want to say about the Russian leak thing, Didn't the USA give Russia a ton of money after the Cold War so they could keep their security systems in place and running?
All world threats are defused by Superman and the Justice League anyway.
The alliance system prior to WWI did not guarantee that an aggressive nation would be completely decimated the second it wrinkled its nose funny, with no uncertainty whatsoever. Nukes are in a whole 'nother class from every other weapon out there. You launch one, millions of people die, period.
They still seem to just be implying that maybe something might be happening (and I quote trimmed the other link, doh), rather than evidence that Russia's issues with security have led to people walking off with nuclear weapon plans.
I understand that, but the underlying thought to both systems is "if you attack us, you die"
Personally, I'm pretty sure life would survive... the planet's been through some pretty hard times. I don't think most humans would make it, though we're hardier than we give ourselves credit for... the first few generations would have a hard time of it, but I once everthing settled, we'd probably not be down for the count. What would bother me is that places that are farthest from "nuke zones" are the ones that may not be the ones where we want humanity to be spread-forth from again. The idea of a world populated by West Virginians scares me... NASCAR Road Warrior.
Yeah, but after the JLA disarms all the nukes it turns out the people who told them to were all secret aliens in disguise and they invade Earth and we've got no nukes left to fight them with.
At least that's what Bruce Timm told me.
The minimum amount of nuclear weapons necessary for deterrence is the number required to prevent another nuclear nation from electing to go to war without provocation. Would the US be willing to go to war if D.C., NY, LA, SF, Boston and, say, Houston were basically guaranteed to be obliterated? We've already shown we are not willing to elect to go to war if Seoul is at threat, or we'd have emptied the contents of a few B-52s over Pyongyang after they tested their weapon. Is there evidence that Russia would follow different calculations? Iran? I doubt it.
Also on the subject of Iran, it bears noting as someone said above that Ahmadinejad doesn't have any control over military policy. His opinions are just hot air. The top brass has a goal: continue exporting the Islamic Revolution. If they drop a bomb on Israel, the US won't even have time to react. Some 50 or 60 or Israel's own "undisclosed" stockpile of weapons would get to Tehran and cities beyond before the US President even had time to get Israeli intelligence on the phone. The Glorious Revolution? Over. Not in their best interests. They are pursuing a "breakaway" program, something that is ostensibly civilian but can be militarized within months if need be. The Iranians watched Saddam fail to produce a nuclear threat and be destroyed, and they watched N. Korea produce a nuclear threat and earn high-level negotiations with Washington. They're not retarded.
Cheap nukes are not hard to make. You need to throw a bunch of Uranium at some other Uranium at really high speeds. It's really inefficient and it's huge. (hard to smuggle, so only good for bombs. like from an airplane) Good fission nukes need a lot more technical knowledge, and fusion nukes are pretty much beyond the range of the "rogue state" actors we really need to be worried about.
Running around Google, I also saw a bunch of stuff that accuses Russia of selling this technology (to China and North Korea namely).
Either way, if its by security leaks or them just selling the shit off, Russia is making the job of nuclear disarmament tougher.
North Korea
spoliered for longness
Russian officials touted the equipment at an IT exhibition in Pyongyang a fortnight ago - just days before the Communist state caused international alarm by launching a salvo of short and long-range missiles into the Sea of Japan.
In what appear to have been unguarded comments, Aleksei Grigoriev, the deputy director of Russia's Federal Information Technologies Agency, told a reporter that North Korea planned to buy equipment for the safe storage and transportation of nuclear materials, developed by a Russian government-controlled defence company.
The company, Atlas, also received interest from the North Koreans in their security systems and encryption technology - which were kept from display at the exhibition for security reasons.
In remarks made to the Russian Itar-Tass news agency - hastily retracted after publication - Mr Grigoriev said that the main aim of the June 28 exhibition was "establishing contacts with the Korean side and discussing future co-operation". Last week Russia, along with China, opposed a draft UN Security Council resolution, proposed by Japan and backed by America, that would bar missile-related financial and technology transactions with North Korea because of the missile tests.
As tensions over the missile tests mounted, the US government yesterday deployed its USS Mustin, equipped with so-called Aegis missile-tracking technology that is geared towards tracking and shooting down enemy missiles, to Yokosuka, home port to the US Navy's 7th Fleet.
On Friday, George W Bush called for the issue of the missile tests to be put before the Security Council. He said he wanted to make clear to Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, "with more than one voice" that the rest of the world condemned Wednesday's launches.
Sources close to the proposed sale of the equipment - which would have civil and military uses - said that it was evidence of Russia's secret support for its Soviet-era ally, which was once a bulwark against Chinese influence in the Far East. It was reported that the North Korean military interest in the exhibition stemmed from the dual purpose of many of the products and technologies on display.
After the show, which led to plans for further meetings between the Russian and North Korean delegations, Mr Grigoriev said Pyongyang's primary interest in buying the equipment was to combat the "threat posed by international terrorism". However, the Russian embassy in Pyongyang immediately denied the report, claiming that it was "disinformation". Mr Grigoriev subsequently denied ever having spoken to the journalist concerned.
Disclosures of a possible deal are at odds with official Russian policy towards North Korea's nuclear programme. On June 22, North Korea's ambassador to Russia, Park Yi Joon, was summoned to the foreign ministry in Moscow and informed that -Russia "strongly objects to any actions that can negatively influence regional stability and worsen nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula".
There was also some anger domestically at Russia's opposition to the UN sanctions resolution. Although the Russian foreign ministry expressed anger that Moscow had not been notified of the launches, it went no further than issuing an anodyne statement expressing concern that the tests endangered Pacific Ocean shipping and "violated the commonly accepted world practice of giving a warning".
Western experts were not surprised that the two countries might be discussing sensitive military deals.
Nicholas Eberstadt, a North Korea expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, said that Russian policy towards North Korea had long been influenced by the desire to restore its Cold War-era influence.
"Russia often seems more ambitious to restore that influence than to play a positive role in international affairs," he said. "We've got no reason to doubt that Moscow is playing a double game with North Korea. It's not entirely surprising considering Vladimir Putin himself came up with the harebrained suggestion some years ago that Moscow, as a protector and provider for the North Korean regime, launch a North Korean satellite."
Mr Eberstadt suggested that any controversial business deals would be politically costly for the Kremlin. "If Moscow wishes to be on the record as the sole defender and apologist for the world's remaining revisionist and nuclear-proliferating regimes, then it would be interesting to see how its European friends would react."
(Source) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/1523468/Russia-secretly-offered-North-Korea-nuclear-technology.html