Is the nuclear deterrent worth it?

[dimreepr]

Chemical and biological and even landmine weaponry has effectively been banned, and it could be argued that this type of weaponry is, potentially, more deadly; especially if it had the same level of investment.

Why can't we do the same with nukes?

I understand that the genie is already out of the bottle and that there remains, chemical and biological and landmines among us and has even killed some of us, and that a single nuke equal's a large number of us; but given the number of times that we've come close to global armagedon, either by design or mistake or accident, the number's are very small indeed, especially when we factor in the number of deaths from car accidents or etc... 

[iNow]

How does one enforce a ban against a nuclear armed state without their own arsenal of similar force and capabilities?

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

How does one enforce a ban against a nuclear armed state without their own arsenal of similar force and capabilities?

In much the same way, mutual observation and adherence, How far would you think North Korea could advance in their objective, if China says no? 

[TheVat]

 

You need either need huge war power or huge economic power to enforce a no-nukes restriction.  Ideally both.

Another path, if there was a time when a more global coalition could really come together on no nukes, would be for nations to consider the budgeting joys of not maintaining a nuke arsenal.  Such arsenals are hideously expensive.  Samuel Beckett couldn't have come up with a scenario more absurd than hundreds of billions spent to maintain something you can never use.  Conventional modern warfare is absurd enough.  Nukes are absurdity cubed.  Sell leaders on all the low carbon energy to be had from all that plutonium.

More dystopian: A terrible global economic collapse that reduced all nations to poverty could do the job - no one could afford to keep the nuke thing going.  Unfortunately such a collapse would likely also mean government incapacity to disassemble the warheads and safely process and secure all that plutonium, so you could have the terrorist nightmare of militant splinter groups raiding ICBM silos and the like.

 

[paulsutton]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

You need either need huge war power or huge economic power to enforce a no-nukes restriction.  Ideally both.

Another path, if there was a time when a more global coalition could really come together on no nukes, would be for nations to consider the budgeting joys of not maintaining a nuke arsenal.  Such arsenals are hideously expensive.  Samuel Beckett couldn't have come up with a scenario more absurd than hundreds of billions spent to maintain something you can never use.  Conventional modern warfare is absurd enough.  Nukes are absurdity cubed.  Sell leaders on all the low carbon energy to be had from all that plutonium.

More dystopian: A terrible global economic collapse that reduced all nations to poverty could do the job - no one could afford to keep the nuke thing going.  Unfortunately such a collapse would likely also mean government incapacity to disassemble the warheads and safely process and secure all that plutonium, so you could have the terrorist nightmare of militant splinter groups raiding ICBM silos and the like.

 

Problem is, we can probably negotiate with states that are rational,  even North Korea can be influenced by China (as suggested earlier).   I agree that  a bigger threat could come from rogue groups or individuals ?, 

Do they even need to raid silos,? they can perhaps get hold of nuclear material by other means if  they wanted to,.

As we saw with the recent US Dept of Defence leak, it only takes one person,  and he was trying to impress his internet friends.  He took a risk, got caught,  how many leaks come from the inside, vs from persons on the outside. even universities have radio-isotopes of different elements.  

I think we need to look at where a threat may come from.  

Paul

 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In much the same way, mutual observation and adherence, How far would you think North Korea could advance in their objective, if China says no? 

So you’re suggesting we could just send violators a strongly worded letter and move on with our day grateful to wash our hands of the threat?

4 hours ago, paulsutton said:

Do they even need to raid silos,? they can perhaps get hold of nuclear material by other means if  they wanted to

Some disgruntled Russian soldier tired of raping Ukrainian women might even trade some for a soft pack of smokes and a bottle or two of vodka. 

[npts2020]

7 hours ago, paulsutton said:

Do they even need to raid silos,? they can perhaps get hold of nuclear material by other means if  they wanted to,

"They" would probably need to raid silos. Producing materiel that is refined enough to make a nuclear explosion is not a trivial undertaking and requires expertise, high tech equipment and a fair amount of time.

[Peterkin]

It's insane. You can't regulate or negotiate insanity.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

So you’re suggesting we could just send violators a strongly worded letter and move on with our day grateful to wash our hands of the threat?

Public opinion had a large part to play in the virtual elimination of the ordinance in my examples, even Iraq ended up destroying their stocks of chemical weapon's; unfortunately they did it secretly to maintain the threat, ironically, had they done so publicly it could have avoided a war.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's insane. You can't regulate or negotiate insanity.

Yet the diplomats' among us do so everyday, sometimes successfully. 

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

You need either need huge war power or huge economic power to enforce a no-nukes restriction.  Ideally both.

Persuasion and people power is arguably more powerful, in the right time and place; like water on a fault line.

Nice post +1 

The funny side of a deterrent...

 

 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Public opinion had a large part to play in the virtual elimination of the ordinance in my examples, even Iraq ended up destroying their stocks of chemical weapons...

I would guess public opinion is strong enough in the US, so the present problem is Russia and China and their being 2/5 of the UN Security Council.  If they ever (next blue moon, perhaps) decided to join US, UK, and France on a full disarmament of nukes, then we would probably be well on our way to a solution.  An international ban, backed by the Big Five, could maybe be implemented.  But only if there was rigorous international monitoring of all fissile materials.  The toughest countries to disarm might prove to be ones like Pakistan, Israel, India, and of course you know who.  Certain financial supports, especially for Israel, might have to be withdrawn to encourage compliance.  

[mistermack]

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I would guess public opinion is strong enough in the US

Is that the same US that won't even countenance giving up their personal assault weapons? Doesn't sound very likely.

[zapatos]

On 4/16/2023 at 7:23 AM, dimreepr said:

Why can't we do the same with nukes?

 

Distrust.

If I don't trust you I would have to be mentally impaired to give up the one, single thing I have that guarantees my safety.

On 4/16/2023 at 9:17 AM, dimreepr said:

In much the same way, mutual observation and adherence, How far would you think North Korea could advance in their objective, if China says no? 

North Korea is not a province of China. North Korea does as it pleases.

21 hours ago, paulsutton said:

Problem is, we can probably negotiate with states that are rational,  even North Korea can be influenced by China (as suggested earlier).  

I don't understand how being able to negotiate is a problem.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Public opinion had a large part to play in the virtual elimination of the ordinance in my examples, even Iraq ended up destroying their stocks of chemical weapon's; unfortunately they did it secretly to maintain the threat, ironically, had they done so publicly it could have avoided a war.

Giving up landmines does not put you at risk of being annihilated.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Persuasion and people power is arguably more powerful, in the right time and place; like water on a fault line.

 

Please make the argument then. I'd like to hear how the US is going to persuade North Korea that their risk from the US goes DOWN after giving up their nukes.

The US and Russia have been at odds since WWII. Why do you think we've not had Americans shooting directly at Russians all that time?

[mistermack]

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I don't trust you I would have to be mentally impaired to give up the one, single thing I have that guarantees my safety.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I don't agree that your safety is guaranteed. Far from it. I live about 10 miles from GCHQ in England. Does our UK deterrent guaranee my safety? Not at all. I'm safe until I'm vaporised. 

Are the people of Finland safer now they are in NATO ? Of course not. Now the people of Helsinki have two or three warheads pointed straight at them, and just minutes away. They probably wouldn't have time to put their shoes on, before they got vaporised. They're safe till it kicks off. Then they're dead. 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I don't agree that your safety is guaranteed. Far from it. I live about 10 miles from GCHQ in England. Does our UK deterrent guaranee my safety? Not at all. I'm safe until I'm vaporised. 

 

Who is going to vaporize you? Russia? North Korea? What leads you to believe you are going to be vaporized?

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Are the people of Finland safer now they are in NATO ? Of course not.

I don't see the connection. Finland did not add or delete nuclear weapons.

[Moontanman]

So we all just surrender to the Russians? Or the Chinese or whatever aggressive power decides to invade us and take over? The people of Finland didn't join NATO to prevent being vaporized they did it to prevent the Russians from invading them. There is safety in numbers, as for nukes... if everyone didn't have them I would be all about preventing anyone from getting them but at this time even minor players can get nukes, DPRK would seem to be a good example and if you believe Russia won't invade ask Ukraine. Russia has made it plain they intend to take back all of the Soviet former states and then some. And they are not shy about rattling around their nuclear capabilities. I'm not sure how you keep rogue states from using the threat of nukes to intimidate and even invade their neighbors but I am quite sure not having nukes to deter their use will not do it.    

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I don't agree that your safety is guaranteed. Far from it. I live about 10 miles from GCHQ in England. Does our UK deterrent guaranee my safety? Not at all. I'm safe until I'm vaporised. 

Are the people of Finland safer now they are in NATO ? Of course not. Now the people of Helsinki have two or three warheads pointed straight at them, and just minutes away. They probably wouldn't have time to put their shoes on, before they got vaporised. They're safe till it kicks off. Then they're dead. 

It is encouraging when someone grasps the essential lie that nuclear weapons make the world safer.  Until we can forge some kind of international and binding treaty that reduces then eliminates nukes, no one is safe.  Those of us who live near an AFB with a nuclear bomber wing, or GCHQ or a missile field don't so easily enjoy the luxury of imagining we are safe.  

Even a fairly limited Herman Khan scenario of nuclear war would make current spectres of climate catastrophe, polar melting, PFAS toxicity, plasticmageddon, lethal pandemics, etc look like a few ants at a picnic by comparison.  

The kids of Generation Z give me some hope because so many of them seem to grasp these realities and their sharing of awareness easily crosses the porous international borders of the web.  

 

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

It is encouraging when someone grasps the essential lie that nuclear weapons make the world safer.

Nuclear weapons don't make the world safer. They make the little guy safer. If there were no nuclear weapons then the US could attack NK with impunity, just as they have so many other countries. Since NK has nuclear weapons the US cannot attack them. The price would be too high. The little guys are not stupid. It is one of the reasons Israel  joined the nuclear club, and the reason Iran may soon join too. 

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Russia has made it plain they intend to take back all of the Soviet former states and then some.

That's absolute rubbish. Where's your evidence? They could easily have retaken Georgia. But didn't. They stopped when they had control of areas that had mostly Russian populace, who had been under attack. And haven't done anything since. 

Crimea they re-took, but Ukraine and Crimea are a special case. Ukraine has historically been a region of Russia for centuries, and Crimea only became part of Ukraine as a meaningless gesture to Krushchev (a Ukrainian), on his birthday. About thirty years ago, Ukraine was given independence in a gesture of goodwill, and gave in return assurances that the Russian Black Sea Fleet would have continuous access to Sevastopol, and Ukraine would stay neutral. 

Since both of those commitments were going to be abandoned, the Russians could either roll over and take it, or do something. They chose the latter. 

Your claim that they intend to take back all of the former Soviet states is pure empty imagination, straight out of your own head.          

[normanbatesfig]

While it's true that chemical and biological weapons have been effectively banned, the same can't be said for nuclear weapons due to their massive destructive power and potential for global devastation. The risks associated with nuclear weapons are too great to ignore, especially given the history of close calls and accidents that could have had catastrophic consequences. While we may never be able to completely eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons, it's important to work towards reducing their numbers and making progress towards disarmament.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who is going to vaporize you? Russia? North Korea?

Those are two possible candidates. Pakistan, Iran, China... or any number of unknown terrorist and criminal forces that get hold of illicit nuclear material for purposes you can't begin to guess, and set dirty bombs off in unpredicted locations.  The existence of those things guarantees that everyone's at risk, the more players, large and small, national and transnational, known and unknown, will try to get in on the action. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That's absolute rubbish. Where's your evidence? They could easily have retaken Georgia. But didn't. They stopped when they had control of areas that had mostly Russian populace, who had been under attack. And haven't done anything since. 

Crimea they re-took, but Ukraine and Crimea are a special case. Ukraine has historically been a region of Russia for centuries, and Crimea only became part of Ukraine as a meaningless gesture to Krushchev (a Ukrainian), on his birthday. About thirty years ago, Ukraine was given independence in a gesture of goodwill, and gave in return assurances that the Russian Black Sea Fleet would have continuous access to Sevastopol, and Ukraine would stay neutral. 

Since both of those commitments were going to be abandoned, the Russians could either roll over and take it, or do something. They chose the latter. 

Your claim that they intend to take back all of the former Soviet states is pure empty imagination, straight out of your own head.          

Actually Putin has said this but it doesn't really matter, they had no reason to take back anything. The countries involved are sovereign states and did not ask russia to invade them and kill their citizens.  

So you are a russian apologist? They have claimed they have a right to take back alaska, claim they were cheated by the US. How do you think that is going to go over? Ukraine is kicking their asses so badly they have resorted to making nuclear threats, anyone who trusts Russia and Putin is foolish. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Those are two possible candidates. Pakistan, Iran, China... 

Can you please provide some evidence that they are going to vaporize you? The question was "who is going to vaporize you", not "who has or could potentially have a nuclear weapons". I mean, technically some gal in Thailand is a possible  candidate for stabbing me in the heart, but unless there is some reason  to believe it is going to happen it seems more like fear mongering rather than a reasonable discussion about whether or not we can negotiate our way into a nuclear free world.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Your claim that they intend to take back all of the former Soviet states is pure empty imagination, straight out of your own head.          

I'm really curious how you know Moon didn't read that somewhere.

[iNow]

Putin himself has repeatedly said he wants to return to the days of the Soviet empire and that the worst day in his country’s history is when the Berlin Wall came down (he was stationed there as a part of the KBG and had to help burn documents in their embassy when it happened). 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Nuclear weapons don't make the world safer. They make the little guy safer. If there were no nuclear weapons then the US could attack NK with impunity, just as they have so many other countries. Since NK has nuclear weapons the US cannot attack them. 

However (and your point about the wee fellas I did see) if the Big 5 disarmed (which was the thought experiment I was running) and the UN banned nukes, then we and our allies would be part of the coalition having the ugly task of enforcing the ban.  If, say, Pakistan and NK failed to start dismantling their nukes as the rest of the nuclear countries were doing, they would quickly find themselves very unsafe.  If the Security Council ever came together on this, the little holdouts would become the turds in the punchbowl.  

You may say I'm a dreamer....

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I'm really curious how you know Moon didn't read that somewhere.

Someplace like here?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/europe/russia-putin-empire-restoration-endgame-intl-cmd/index.html

Or from one of hundreds of other news outlets that have covered Putin's public remarks directly referencing his plans to rebuild the Empire.  

x-post with @iNow

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide some evidence that they are going to vaporize you?

No. But they are still possible candidates.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

the question was "who is going to vaporize you",

True. I don't know who will actually do, but I do believe that the more people can, the more likely it becomes that one of them will.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I mean, technically some gal in Thailand is a possible  candidate for stabbing me in the heart, but unless there is some reason  to believe it is going to happen it seems more like fear mongering rather than a reasonable discussion about whether or not we can negotiate our way into a nuclear free world.

I'm not convinced the two scenarios are technically in the same realm of probability. Or diplomatic negotiability.

The slightly larger previous question was whether the proliferation of nuclear weapons guarantees safety. I say "No", but I can't prove it. With that wholly inadequate contribution, I will now go back to watching "Madame Secretary".