Is the nuclear deterrent worth it?

[iNow]

The whole thing is MAD

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No. But they are still possible candidates.

 

Sure. Everyone with a nuclear weapon or who may get a nuclear weapon in the future is a candidate to vaporize you. 

 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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.

 

Of course. But how does that make it more or less likely that we can ban nuclear weapons globally?

I think most people agree nuclear weapons can be bad for people and the earth. But just being 'bad' does not necessarily mean there is a way to ban them.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

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.

Absolutely, nuclear war is a zero sum game so for the deterrent to work efficiently, both sides need trusted information; without trust escalation is almost inevitable, with trust de-escalation is perfectly possible.

For exqample America missed a trick in the Cuban crisis, the reason Russia wanted to place nukes on Cuba is because they perceived an imbalance in the game, which means they think it's a winnable game, but only for their opponent. It was averted because America promised to take theirs out of Turkey (IIRC); but that perception of imbalance remained in the Russian culture, the result of which meant a spiral of escalation/investment to the point that each side had 10 or 20 (or more) times the amount of nuclear ordinance needed to ensure it remained a zero sum game.

All of which could have been avoided, if America not only promised the Turkish nukes but also promised to level the playingfield and were prepaired to prove it, Russia wouldn't feel the need to invest anymore, not only would escalation be avoided, but it shines a light on the path to de-escalation, take one away each, one step at a time and before we know it we're past the event horizon of peace without mutually assured destruction, while the game remains zero sum.

 

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

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  Certain financial supports, especially for Israel, might have to be withdrawn to encourage compliance.

More difficult now for sure because power corrupts; if America had taken note of some strong philosophical thinking on the subject (I've skimmed some of writing's but can't remember  the authors names, I'll do some digging), available a decade before the Cuban crisis.

Edited April 18, 2023 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

The whole thing is MAD

And prone to a witch hunt, but what also floats???

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

But how does that make it more or less likely that we can ban nuclear weapons globally?

The more numerous and diverse "we" are, the less we reach consensus on anything. We were unable to ban them when two countries owned them. Now nine countries officially own them and several more have accidental possession through the breakdown of USSR and others are aspiring to own them and the waste products are scattered all over the world. 

Most of these countries can't agree on the shape of the table they'll sit at to discuss mutual annihilation. I'm no statistician, but I don't care for the odds. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

All of which could have been avoided, if America not only promised the Turkish nukes but also promised to level the playing field and were prepared to prove it, Russia wouldn't feel the need to invest anymore, not only would escalation be avoided, but it shines a light on the path to de-escalation, take one away each, one step at a time and before we know it we're past the event horizon of peace without mutually assured destruction, while the game remains zero sum.

I liked this.  Baby steps away from the cliff.  And this was sort of where START was headed.  How that treaty can be restored I have no idea.  I agree the US didn't really explore the philosophic questions early on the arms race, when asking them could have got us off on a different foot.  But there was too much Red Menace hysteria, thanks to Sen. Joe McCarthy and others of his ilk.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I liked this.  Baby steps away from the cliff.  And this was sort of where START was headed.  How that treaty can be restored I have no idea.  I agree the US didn't really explore the philosophic questions early on the arms race, when asking them could have got us off on a different foot.  But there was too much Red Menace hysteria, thanks to Sen. Joe McCarthy and others of his ilk.

Norwegian blues, stun easily...

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The more numerous and diverse "we" are, the less we reach consensus on anything. We were unable to ban them when two countries owned them. Now nine countries officially own them and several more have accidental possession through the breakdown of USSR and others are aspiring to own them and the waste products are scattered all over the world. 

Most of these countries can't agree on the shape of the table they'll sit at to discuss mutual annihilation. I'm no statistician, but I don't care for the odds. 

Well one of us has to survive, I'm OK with that, for now...

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I liked this.  Baby steps away from the cliff. 

It's only a model... 

[mistermack]

Relying on Nuclear weapons as a guarantee of safety is a bit like using a tight-rope across the Grand Canyon as a shortcut. 

You can laugh at the people going the long way round, taking days for what you do in minutes, with them stumbling and tripping along the way while you are enjoying the fabulous view. You might even say "where's your evidence that I'm going to fall ? "  You might even be right, and might never fall. 

But most people with any sense can see the flaw in your argument. It's just that nuclear war is harder to picture, than slipping off a high wire. Which is a bit odd, when you look at the people with their fingers on the trigger. Maybe Sleepy Joe might think twice, but Donald Trump might be about to rest his finger on the button, and nobody here seems to doubt Putin's readiness to shout fire, in the right circumstances. And the Israelis have never been more unstable, and Iran is working away in the shadows. And who knows who will be in power in China this time next year? 

For nuclear war to kick off, all it takes is for a stand-off where nobody will back down. Like Ukraine, but with nukes. And history tells us the worst can and does happen under those circumstances. 

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Relying on Nuclear weapons as a guarantee of safety is a bit like using a tight-rope across the Grand Canyon as a shortcut. 

You can laugh at the people going the long way round, taking days for what you do in minutes, with them stumbling and tripping along the way while you are enjoying the fabulous view. You might even say "where's your evidence that I'm going to fall ? "  You might even be right, and might never fall. 

But most people with any sense can see the flaw in your argument. It's just that nuclear war is harder to picture, than slipping off a high wire. Which is a bit odd, when you look at the people with their fingers on the trigger. Maybe Sleepy Joe might think twice, but Donald Trump might be about to rest his finger on the button, and nobody here seems to doubt Putin's readiness to shout fire, in the right circumstances. And the Israelis have never been more unstable, and Iran is working away in the shadows. And who knows who will be in power in China this time next year? 

For nuclear war to kick off, all it takes is for a stand-off where nobody will back down. Like Ukraine, but with nukes. And history tells us the worst can and does happen under those circumstances. 

So it is your opinion that North Korea and Israel, would be safer without nuclear weapons than with them?

[mistermack]

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So it is your opinion that North Korea and Israel, would be safer without nuclear weapons than with them?

Safer without. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Safer without. 

Do you have any thoughts on why NK and Israel do not get rid of the nuclear weapons if they are safer without them?

[StringJunky]

For NK and Israel, nukes are moot because 'the enemy' is very close or within. Pointless sabre-rattling.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

For NK and Israel, nukes are moot because 'the enemy' is very close or within. Pointless sabre-rattling.

So you agree with @mistermack those countries would be safer without them? If so, why do you think they don't get rid of them to increase their security?

[TheVat]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you agree with @mistermack those countries would be safer without them? If so, why do you think they don't get rid of them to increase their security?

I guess they are distinguishing between objective measures of safety and more subjective (clinging to nuclear teddy bears) political forms.   Politics has a lot of threat gesturing.  Like baboon troupes.

 

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you agree with @mistermack those countries would be safer without them? If so, why do you think they don't get rid of them to increase their security?

Because they are labouring under an illusion that they protected.

[Moontanman]

It's amazing how many people are aggressor nation apologists in this scenario. I wonder if it was their nation that was being invaded and taken over would they still be apologists for the aggressors? It's not like Putin or Hitler just wanted some breathing room to ride their horses. 

While I am not and would not be in favor of my country invading and taking over another nations territory I am in favor of my nation defending me against such actions. Yes I said "defending me" that is one big reason we live in nations. Our ancestors sought safety in numbers and i doubt they or we really think that aggression to take over someone else's territory is the same as defending their territory. 

Yes the world would (maybe) be a safer place if no nukes existed but I think it's arguable that nukes have prevented an all out WWIII type scenario from occurring since WWII,  Yes I know small wars have occured and continue to occur but large scale conflicts have been avoided and I think it's arguable that nukes have played a big part in this avoidance. Constant large scale conflicts could be a game changer for civilization and prevent any real world order. 

There have been several potential world wide conflict triggers since WWII but the threat of nukes being used has helped mitigate the scale and ferocity of these conflicts and provided a real reason for the parties involved to sue for peace. Is it a perfect system... no of course not... but trusting aggressor nations to keep to their own "side" has never worked and appeasement has only ever resulted in the appeased wanting more and more. 

Putin apologists are no better now than Hitler apologists were in preventing aggression that leads to widespread warfare. IMHO Putin intended to use his nukes to intimidate the world into allowing him to retake all of the "lost" appendages of the USSR and with an almost certain intent to take much more of the world under his "wing" to protect them from the peace and prosperity of being free nations. Putin/Russia/China/DPRK and other nations have motives that are simply not part of allowing a world where nations exist to peacefully coexist on the world's stage. 

I know the "West" isn't exactly pure as the driven snow in it's motives but at least actively invading and taking over other countries via warfare is at least officially illegal.  Large aggressor nations should be opposed by smaller nations combing their efforts to thwart the ambitions of larger aggressive nations.  

And yes i know my nation isn't innocent but we can be better and that can't happen if nations like russia can use the threat of nukes to straight up intimidate other nations into surrender. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Moontanman

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well one of us has to survive,

Why? More interestingly: How?

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do you have any thoughts on why NK and Israel do not get rid of the nuclear weapons if they are safer without them?

They are both run by unstable deluded people for one thing, and that's enough on it's own. And the reason that I think they are less safe, is that a loony with a nuclear weapon is as much danger to themselves as anyone else. Dissent from within might spark off some drastic desperate actions. 

Another reason they are less safe is the obvious incentive for nervous neighbours to get their own cover, whether it be via an ally, or their own domestic bombs. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

They are both run by unstable deluded people for one thing, and that's enough on it's own. And the reason that I think they are less safe, is that a loony with a nuclear weapon is as much danger to themselves as anyone else. Dissent from within might spark off some drastic desperate actions. 

Another reason they are less safe is the obvious incentive for nervous neighbours to get their own cover, whether it be via an ally, or their own domestic bombs. 

yes but Putin couldn't intimidate his victims if he didn't have nukes, his regular military can't do shit. 

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Politics has a lot of threat gesturing.  Like baboon troupes.

And like with baboons, threat gesturing is what keeps people from coming to actual blows. It is a reminder that if you attack me you will get severly hurt too, even if you are 100x my size.

 

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Because they are labouring under an illusion that they protected.

Can you expand on this please? I am trying to understand why it is an illusion. As a rather small scale example, I knew a guy in college who was a bit of a dork, small and kind of funny looking. He also had a black belt in karate. As much as the bullies might have wanted to pick on him they never did, given that they knew prior to defeating him they were going to absorb an unacceptable level of damage themselves. If 10 guys decide to beat up one fellow outside a bar, if that guy pulls a knife the bullies are likely to back off. Not because they couldn't win, but because the risk to themselves was too extreme. Why isn't the same kind of risk analysis done by nations that is done by individuals? Why won't the threat of a nuclear bomb lobbed into your backyard be enough to keep a bigger nation from invading a smaller nation?

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why won't the threat of a nuclear bomb lobbed into your backyard be enough to keep a bigger nation from invading a smaller nation?

You're still not getting it. Nobody is saying that there is no deterrent effect. The point is that it only has to fail ONCE to cause a catastrophe. It's a bit like taking a pill that restores hair loss, but can cause a fatal heart attack. 

You can take the pill, and show off your luxuriant hair if you like. It's a gamble. A smaller reward, gambled against a total catastrophe. You might be a winner, or not, like the guy using the tightrope over the grand canyon. 

The difference with nuclear, is that you're taking the wives and kids across the tightrope along with you.

[dimreepr]

On 4/18/2023 at 12:19 PM, dimreepr said:

Absolutely, nuclear war is a NON zero sum game so for the deterrent to work efficiently, both sides need trusted information; without trust escalation is almost inevitable, with trust de-escalation is perfectly possible.

Sorry, FTFM 

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

So it is your opinion that North Korea and Israel, would be safer without nuclear weapons than with them?

It's mine too, as game theory suggests in a Mexican standoff (with one bullet each) ones best chance of survival, is to fire your gun into the ground and disarm yourself.

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

And like with baboons, threat gesturing is what keeps people from coming to actual blows.

Only when the threat is unequal, in your favour, does it avoid blows.

But the question remains, in all this posturing from equal's, when would you press the big red button?

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You're still not getting it. Nobody is saying that there is no deterrent effect. The point is that it only has to fail ONCE to cause a catastrophe. It's a bit like taking a pill that restores hair loss, but can cause a fatal heart attack. 

You can take the pill, and show off your luxuriant hair if you like. It's a gamble. A smaller reward, gambled against a total catastrophe. You might be a winner, or not, like the guy using the tightrope over the grand canyon. 

The difference with nuclear, is that you're taking the wives and kids across the tightrope along with you.

In all of the war game scenarios dreamt up by the Rand corporation think tank, did I think there would be a scenario in which I agreed with @mistermack  but also felt the need to give him a +1.  😲

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why? More interestingly: How?

It's all about the context of my post within this thread; WE can survive a nuclear war, if we all only have one bullet...

Edited April 19, 2023 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You're still not getting it.

Yes. Thus the reason I asked.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But the question remains, in all this posturing from equal's, when would you press the big red button?

But I'm not talking about equals. I'm talking about asymmetric situations.

Would Russia have been so willing to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine had nuclear weapons?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's mine too, as game theory suggests in a Mexican standoff (with one bullet each) ones best chance of survival, is to fire your gun into the ground and disarm yourself.

That's not the way  I read it. In a Mexican standoff the best chance of survival is to maintain the status quo.

Quote

A Mexican standoff is a confrontation where no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.^[1][2] Any party initiating aggression might trigger their own demise. At the same time, the parties are unable to extract themselves from the situation without suffering a loss. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event or interparty dialogue makes it possible to resolve it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff#:~:text=A Mexican standoff is a,situation without suffering a loss.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

But I'm not talking about equals. I'm talking about asymmetric situations.

But does that mean, it's only the biggest/strongest baboon that gets him some???

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would Russia have been so willing to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine had nuclear weapons?

What if they did?

Would you press the button?

 

And what would you target?

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

And like with baboons, threat gesturing is what keeps people from coming to actual blows. It is a reminder that if you attack me you will get severly hurt too, even if you are 100x my size.

 

 If Ukraine hadn't signed the Budapest Memorandum they would have nukes and Putin would have been likely deterred from attacking.  So, in terms of realpolitik, the baboon approach is valid.  

In terms of a moral analysis, we get Mack's tightrope problem.  Disarming Ukraine in 1994 meant there was no risk it could bare its nuclear fangs and have Russia call its bluff.  If they had kept nukes, there would be some risk.

  It's the risk-loving poker players who sometimes gain power in a country, or a rogue military officer who breaks loose from central command,  that make the risk Mack addresses a real one.