Nuclear free world?

[myata]

What is a safer future? Does that include asteroid impact or global pandemic? By comparison, motor vehicle death and injury are a more pressing matter.

Let's not forget that we're talking about just a couple of human generations of nuclear history, in the civilization that is hundreds times older. And we already had an episode like Cuba crisis, just inches from the red line. Borders, allegiances and power balances will change. With a dozen of nuclear players, and tens of thousands of bombs around, the clock is ticking, and it would only take one major incident to trigger a disaster that would set humankind back for decades.

A safer future would be one based on the collective security and law. There's simply no path from the current MAD situation to that future. Anybody with a few nukes under their belt can ignore anything, and the key players are only setting the example. Unless all major players give up their weapons (their combined conventional power would still be more than enough to dwarf any renegade power), we are set for a future, where any major conflict would carry the risk of triggering Armageddon.

[myata]

Iran with the A-Bomb actually violates the 'perfect rationality' portion of the MAD doctrine. Iran, afterall, is a religious theocracy which is currently awaiting the (re)appearance of the 12th Imam...perhaps an A-Bomb will speed that wait up.

Of course there's always a strong, compelling reason, why I should be entitled to the right to have the thing, while the other has to be denied.

[DogOnPorch]

Of course there's always a strong, compelling reason, why I should be entitled to the right to have the thing, while the other has to be denied.

Religious crazies with nuclear weapons is indeed a compelling reason. Can't expect them to spend all their time hanging gays and torturing reporters.

[Wilber]

Again that was just a hypothesis that is based on threats from Israel to attack Iran. If nuclear bomb makes you detterent then you will think twice about attacking another country. This is a valid point when countries know they have the capability but depolying the weapons tantamounts to their own total destruction.

Exactly! But it also acts as a deterrent and makes people think twice. Now I am not saying this is true in the case of Iran as there's no case to even substantiate the validity of the claim that they are in possession of a nuclear bomb. All we can do is to think of scenarios and just have a hog wash talk about the mullahs, terrorists, nuclear devices falling into the hands of hezbollah, and bla bla bla. The mullahs may be fanatics but they certainly are not stupid!

Yes, but it was inevitable that Pakistan's possession of that technology is gonna happen sooner than later. Both countries know fully well the consequences of an attack will result in MAD but it was inevitable that Pakistan would eventually become nuclear. Call it from their perspective having a prestige to join a nuclear club, to leverage their power in the region or any other scenarios.

Again, you assume that common sense will always prevail. I maintain the more poeple who have these things decreases the odds that at some point it will not.

[DogOnPorch]

Again, you assume that common sense will always prevail. I maintain the more poeple who have these things decreases the odds that at some point it will not.

Some folks even worked out a formula of probability of use...

http://www.nukefix.org/

It indeed agrees with your assessment.

Edited April 14, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Wilber]

Unless all major players give up their weapons (their combined conventional power would still be more than enough to dwarf any renegade power), we are set for a future, where any major conflict would carry the risk of triggering Armageddon.

Yet you maintain that others should have the "right" to have them. Even more reason to have overwhelming superiority in these weapons so that anyone with a few nukes under his belt cannot ignore anything and to discourage them from thinking they could actually get away with using one. The allies pretty much disarmed after WW1 and got WW2 for their trouble.

[myata]

Religious crazies with nuclear weapons is indeed a compelling reason. Can't expect them to spend all their time hanging gays and torturing reporters.

Whatever. They're just words, that make "me" better then "them". And once my superiority has been established (in my own eyes), there's no reason to think that I may be doing something wrong, or even "them" having a valid case.

[DogOnPorch]

Whatever. They're just words, that make "me" better then "them". And once my superiority has been established (in my own eyes), there's no reason to think that I may be doing something wrong, or even "them" having a valid case.

Cultural relativism. So you deny that Iran is run by religious crazies who are awaiting the return of the 12th Imam...or are those jus' words, as well?

[myata]

Yet you maintain that others should have the "right" to have them. Even more reason to have overwhelming superiority in these weapons so that anyone with a few nukes under his belt cannot ignore anything and to discourage them from thinking they could actually get away with using one. The allies pretty much disarmed after WW1 and got WW2 for their trouble.

No I'm only saying that major players are setting the path to the world where any player with a reasonable standing has a strong incentive to acquire these arms. This is the environment that promotes prolifiration despite all verbal claims to the contrary. Just watch the trend (50s - 2; 60-70 - 5; now close to 10). Eventually, they will spread beyond any control, and the disaster will be only a matter or time.

The only way out is for the big five to combine their efforts, reduce their levels to that of the others, and work on a comprehensive treaty banning any future development - with collective security measures against any renegade(s).

[bush_cheney2004]

....The only way out is for the big five to combine their efforts, reduce their levels to that of the others, and work on a comprehensive treaty banning any future development - with collective security measures against any renegade(s).

What you are proposing in no better than the orginal NPT framework and enforcement measures. Furthermore, the expectation of "safer" would be realized in perception only. Is that all you need to be satisfied?

[myata]

What you are proposing in no better than the orginal NPT framework and enforcement measures.

If NPT framework calls for a dramatic reduction to a minimal, specific level, like several hundred nukes, as the first step, indeed there's no difference. Note that at this time there's only two countries that exceed that level, so with genuine will and commitment, the thing could be started in a snap.

And vice versa, of course: if it's not going anytime soon, wouldn't it indicate a problem with the above (genuinity of will and commitment), rather than passing issues like Iran and N.K?

Furthermore, the expectation of "safer" would be realized in perception only.

Not really. It takes several hours of massive conventional bombing to destroy a city, and only one medium sized nuke. The world would be much safer without them, in reality. Of course, perception is a highly individual thing, somebody just wouldn't sleep without training submachine guns on the door and windows.

[bush_cheney2004]

If NPT framework calls for a dramatic reduction to a minimal, specific level, like several hundred nukes, as the first step, indeed there's no difference. Note that at this time there's only two countries that exceed that level, so with genuine will and commitment, the thing could be started in a snap.

Your chosen "level" is arbitrary at best.....genuine will and commitment are no match for nation state interests and capabilities.

And vice versa, of course: if it's not going anytime soon, wouldn't it indicate a problem with the above (genuinity of will and commitment), rather than passing issues like Iran and N.K?

Again, you are working from a premise that does not reflect reality...very similar to the gun control debate.

Not really. It takes several hours of massive conventional bombing to destroy a city, and only one medium sized nuke. The world would be much safer without them, in reality. Of course, perception is a highly individual thing, somebody just wouldn't sleep without training submachine guns on the door and windows.

Also does not jibe with reality....conventional weapons have destroyed more cities, towns, villages, etc. than nuclear weapons. Fearing a potential nuclear conflagration loses context if not framed by reality and body count from non-nuclear means.

Anyone who wishes for DPRK or Iranian nukes just to spite the "Big 5" is not being consistent in the matter of arms reduction.

[Wilber]

The only way out is for the big five to combine their efforts, reduce their levels to that of the others, and work on a comprehensive treaty banning any future development - with collective security measures against any renegade(s).

The problem with treaties is that you have to get people to sign and honour them. Countries which really want nukes have no interest in doing either. Someone will always be angling for superiority, they always have in every period of history. The present balance has served us well so far, I've no desire to take a chance on changing it. The big five reducing their levels will just mean they are no longer the big five although co-operation between them is certainly desirable. After all Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks in 1936 when he walked into the Rhineland but the allies didn't have the will to do it. The rest is history. Weakening yourself will just make any renegades stronger and braver, however the renegade's knowledge that he and his country can quickly be turned into a crispy critter is an effective collective security measure and the only one that will work against a nuclear threat.

kactus makes a good point when he maintains the desire for nuclear weapons has more to do with a country's local geopolitical situation than it does with the status of the major powers, as they have no hope of matching the majors unless of course those powers voluntarily come down to their level. That would be a bad idea.

Just like a toy that you don't want your kid to have, it is easier not to let him have it in the first place than try and take it away after he has already played with it.

[myata]

The problem with treaties is that you have to get people to sign and honour them. Countries which really want nukes have no interest in doing either.

And to ensure observance we can certainly retain all the observation technology that's been developed, no harm in that. It's impossible to build a large stock of weapons without it being detected, plus it's near suicidal to use them without testing. But indeed, those who want nukes for their own sake, would always find a reason, making their own compliance impractical. Like that terrible existential threat.. Iraq.. North Korea.. Iran. Sounds familiar?

Weakening yourself will just make any renegades stronger and braver, however the renegade's knowledge that he and his country can quickly be turned into a crispy critter is an effective collective security measure and the only one that will work against a nuclear threat.

That would be one way to build a framework of collective cooperation and security for the future, without which long term survival of humans just cannot be assured. If we just couldn't raise to that challenge, our best bet is indeed to keep the big stick and pray for the best. For however long is allowed, till somebody triggers the disaster, for whatever cause or reason won't matter one bit.

kactus makes a good point when he maintains the desire for nuclear weapons has more to do with a country's local geopolitical situation than it does with the status of the major powers, as they have no hope of matching the majors unless of course those powers voluntarily come down to their level. That would be a bad idea.

Of course. And those geopolitical situations aren't frozen dead and tend to change over time. Any rising power, like name any number, whose interests happen to brush with those of a nuke holder, would want one for themselves. All pebbles are round, after all.

Just like a toy that you don't want your kid to have, it is easier not to let him have it in the first place than try and take it away after he has already played with it.

Somehow I'm not surprised that after all scientific considerations, it came back down to this model, again. Us, grown ups and them, little mindless "kids", having to clue what they're doing and couldn't be trusted with a match. If that's the pattern of the world we want to live in (and leave to our kids to live in), then, indeed, stuffing it with nukes, thermonukes and other super highly explosive stuff would be our best strategy to surivive. For a while.

[Wilber]

And to ensure observance we can certainly retain all the observation technology that's been developed, no harm in that. It's impossible to build a large stock of weapons without it being detected, plus it's near suicidal to use them without testing. But indeed, those who want nukes for their own sake, would always find a reason, making their own compliance impractical. Like that terrible existential threat.. Iraq.. North Korea.. Iran. Sounds familiar?

We are observing them, that's how we know they want them.

That would be one way to build a framework of collective cooperation and security for the future, without which long term survival of humans just cannot be assured. If we just couldn't raise to that challenge, our best bet is indeed to keep the big stick and pray for the best. For however long is allowed, till somebody triggers the disaster, for whatever cause or reason won't matter one bit.

You have it backward, without a big stick you have to pray for the best because there is nothing else you can do. Praying for the best has not had good success when it comes to ensuring security. Big sticks have a much better record.

Of course. And those geopolitical situations aren't frozen dead and tend to change over time. Any rising power, like name any number, whose interests happen to brush with those of a nuke holder, would want one for themselves. All pebbles are round, after all.

So how do you stop them from being used other than making sure they know you have a bigger stick?

Somehow I'm not surprised that after all scientific considerations, it came back down to this model, again. Us, grown ups and them, little mindless "kids", having to clue what they're doing and couldn't be trusted with a match. If that's the pattern of the world we want to live in (and leave to our kids to live in), then, indeed, stuffing it with nukes, thermonukes and other super highly explosive stuff would be our best strategy to surivive. For a while.

No one can be 100% trusted but some are much more trustworthy than others. The countries that have had these weapons since WW2 have shown themselves to be very trustworthy, why do you want to push your luck? If you think that you will be able to get rid of nuclear weapons you are dreaming unless you can make the reasons nations come into conflict go away. No weapon has ever gone away until it was made obsolete by another weapon. I don't see human nature changing so I don't see that changing either. Until that happens we will just have to rely on big sticks for our security.

[DogOnPorch]

No one can be 100% trusted but some are much more trustworthy than others. The countries that have had these weapons since WW2 have shown themselves to be very trustworthy, why do you want to push your luck? If you think that you will be able to get rid of nuclear weapons you are dreaming unless you can make the reasons nations come into conflict go away. No weapon has ever gone away until it was made obsolete by another weapon. I don't see human nature changing so I don't see that changing either. Until that happens we will just have to rely on big sticks for our security.

Well said. From about 500BC to about 1700AD, metal armor of different varieties protected humans from injury. At its height around 1200AD, the knight became known as 'the terrible worm', almost unkillable inside his 'armored cocoon'. Of course, we all know what eventually put an end to this period.

[myata]

I don't see human nature changing so I don't see that changing either. Until that happens we will just have to rely on big sticks for our security.

Except that now we've covered whole planet and there will be no safe heavens to wait over the menace and start anew. If we can't control our "nature" that much, we're doomed as a species, sooner or later (probably much sooner, than we anticipate). Let's enjoy what's left of it, and stop worrying about anything, it's not worth it as our (trigger) happy nature won't ever change.

[Wilber]

Except that now we've covered whole planet and there will be no safe heavens to wait over the menace and start anew. If we can't control our "nature" that much, we're doomed as a species, sooner or later (probably much sooner, than we anticipate). Let's enjoy what's left of it, and stop worrying about anything, it's not worth it as our (trigger) happy nature won't ever change.

We are doomed as a species one way or another, just like every other species. The only unknowns are how and when.

[myata]

At least the dinosaurs were eliminated by a planetary catastrophe. It'd take some intelligence to achive the same end by our own act!

[DogOnPorch]

At least the dinosaurs were eliminated by a planetary catastrophe. It'd take some intelligence to achive the same end by our own act!

Actually...no. Humans are animals living on the planet like any other. Our only advantage is also our biggest disadvantage. Already, there are too many humans on this planet and the resources are simply not sustainable at this contnued rate of growth. But, like other hominids before us, if we survive our own inventions, eventually we'll either:

a. Die off. Extinction. Kaputenzie.

b. Evolve into Homo Futurus.

Or, if you're religious...

a. Enjoy the return of some messiah.

b. Not enjoy the return of some messiah.

Either way...the Sun only has 5 billion more years left on the meter. We'd best be off the property by then...lol.