Iran

[Jim]

Yes' date=' but I worry more that Rancher will shoot Sheepherder because Sheepherder refused to say his morning prayers.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Heh. Good point.

[FreeThinker]

I'd say it a bit differently: Given that we cannot disinvent the capacity to build nuclear weapons' date=' what manner of deployment of the weapons reduces the risk of catastrophe?

 

As I'll discuss in response to the rest of your post, I do not believe the zero deployment scenario promotes safety, even if it were possible. [/quote']

 

What does having nuclear weapons solve? It is only the path to more destruction. As we have seen lately, it does not scare other countries from developing nukes. Only thing nuclear weapons provide is the ability to end a lot of life’s! Even if Iran did launch a nuclear bomb and hit an American city, retaliations with a nuclear weapon will cause a bigger problem: more death. We have other weapons that are capable of destroying an entire country, and if a country was to launch a nuclear attack the whole world would unite, in fear, and that country would be demolished in no time at all.

 

If your analogy is right than we might as well arm everyone with man made viruses that could potentially kill all human life, after all we have the technology to do it.

 

Forming an anti nuclear pact at least sends the message across: no more nuclear bombs.

 

Agreed that you have less risk if the developer only develops a single weapon. This assumption is premised on the notion that there can be an effective inspection and monitoring regime that would prevent breakout.

 

Everything is an assumption. The question is: are you an optimist or a pessimist?

 

To avoid a breakout, you would need to have an inspection regime which (i) every nuclear power on the world agrees to and (ii) would provide something close to a 100% assurance that other nations are staying nuclear free. Again, it is extremely unlikely that the U.S., Israel, France, Britain, China, India, Pakistan, et al., will give up this power. However, assume you do and using current governmental systems, you put your inspection regime in place.

 

How are you going to assure India that Pakistan is complying? How do you monitor a country with the geography and political system of China?

 

There are a lot of technical questions here that none of us know the immediate answers: With a stockpile of secreted enriched fuels, how long would it take a country such as the United States or China to renuclearize?

 

But the question isn't merely how long it would take to build bombs. The question is how long it would take to build bombs and position them on delivery platforms that could dominate the globe. In this analysis, the United States and sometime in this century, China, would dominate.

 

Suppose we have all disarmed and you have succeeded in destroying not just weapons but also stockpiles of weapons grade materials. Suppose, even that you have somehow agreed and enforced the elimination of delivery systems (submarines with missile platforms, MIRVs, etc).

 

We now live in a completely nuclear free world without weapons, materials or delivery platforms.

 

However, tensions remain. Incident occurs and distrust will ensue. You reference a historical time scale, so apply that to these issues and at some point things are going to go to hell. For example, the inspection program, rightly or wrongly, might lose its credibility. China might insist that Tawain give up all pretense of sovereignty. You could have an outright race; in fact, on a historical time scale, that much is a certainty.

 

However, let's assume that doesn't happen. China merely waits 30-60 years until it is strong enough and the United States is weak enough that both countries have a high degree of condifence that China could develop these systems before the United States could ever mount a serious response.

 

Even if China did not simply announce that it was rescinding the treaty, the global politics would drastically change with the knowledge by the United States that we could not prevent the Chinese from developing these systems and medevializing the United States. Of course, the United States would never let it go so far. At some point, we would have to renounce the agreement and act before some other Country got too far ahead.

 

Again, it is the process of renuclearization which I most fear. Now everyone knows that using nukes is the end of civilization. That might not be the case during a process of rapid renuclearization.

 

This is me thinking for about 15 minutes on a Sunday morning. Can you imagine what the think tanks around the world could make of these complexities? What is the impact of a technology of SDI? What about viruses and hacking and the way such a war would be fought in 30 years? There are a lot of unknowns but any way you slice it, complete disarmanent seems a dangerous fantasy.

 

But the “nuclearization” race is going on now, with good motive. All countries that feel less equipped than the super powers ( Iran, North Korea…) are in their own race to build nuclear weapons. If we ever hope to build a better world we must minimize the threat nuclear weapons cause. There are around 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world , reducing that number to zero will make the world a safer place.

 

I do think that it will be difficult to monitor possible ‘denuclearization’ attempts, but far from impossible. Firstly, it is being done today without nuclear power. Whenever any country tries to develop a nuclear weapons we see intervention by, at least, one super power. If the world was disarmed, this could become law. Of course it would be more difficult to monitor China, but we have to remain optimistic.

 

If , hypothetically speaking, China tried to rearm, the rest of the world would be in danger. Therefore the Chinese would come under extreme pressure from the rest of the world and their efforts could be stopped in time. At least the world would stand a chance to stop the Chinese from rearming.

 

If any nation decided to launch nuclear weapons, any way you look at it, we are doomed. Our only hope is to destroy them all, and develop a strategy to prevent ‘renuclearization’.

 

 

 

 

I cannot envision the structure you are proposing which preserves the sovereignty of nations and which can cover a country the size the the former USSR, the United States or China.

 

People could not envision the internet, yet it is a reality today!

 

 

I do not condemn any country on moral grounds for wanting to arm itself.

 

So what are the superpowers doing when they spend majority of their budget on the military?

 

 

What does it mean to say we will "work to disarm?" If this means reducing weapons to the point that we only have 3X overkill instead of whatever it is now (60X), sure but what good does that do other than save money? However, the real questions is whether we will retain the ability to turn any country that attacks us into rubble fit only for cockroaches. (Another legitimate question is whether we should advance counterforce - the ability to target nukes - technologies.)

 

Yes, 3x is better than 60x, at least it is progress in the right direction. Counter attacking with nuclear bombs doesn’t not solve the problem.

 

 

A huge assumption. As long as Israel has nukes, and probably so long as Israel exists and possibly as long as the United Sates exists, Iran will want nukes.

 

If we disarm Israel and United states, all the other nations, the whole world would unite to crush anyone being suspected of nuclear weapons development. Plus, it would give a stornger ground to debate against any country that would try and arm itself with nuclear weapons.

 

 

I see it as far riskier as it creates the possibility of break out with severe risks as countries race to rearm. Mutually assured destruction kept the peace for 60 years. I'm afraid it is the best that we have and we have no choice but to try to reduce risk by keeping any other country, especially those who are unstable and hostile to the United States, from acquiring nukes.

We have one home, earth. We have a weapon that can destroy everything on this planet. If we keep the current number of nuclear weapons, we are always at risk of nuclear war. In addition, it gives the countries that do not have nuclear weapons ambition to acquire them. Nuclear weapons give individuals the power to destroy the world as we know it. Accidents with nuclear weapons cause additions threats to life as we know it. If any nation tried to renuclearizes the worst we could expect would be a one way strike, without retaliation. If everyone possessed nuclear weapons, everyone would retaliate. We have to be optimistic and try to reach a world free of nuclear weapons; our children will thank us for it. How long do you think we can posses nuclear weapons, without an incident occurring?

[Pangloss]

How long do you think we can posses nuclear weapons, without an incident occurring?

 

61 years and counting....

 

 

If , hypothetically speaking, China tried to rearm, the rest of the world would be in danger. Therefore the Chinese would come under extreme pressure from the rest of the world and their efforts could be stopped in time. At least the world would stand a chance to stop the Chinese from rearming.

 

Yeah that "extreme pressure" has worked so well in the case of North Korea and Iran, hasn't it? We'll just TELL them not to re-establish their nuclear arms, and everything will work out great, right?

 

You can't even say that the reason current peaceful efforts has failed is because they're able to say that other people have them so they should as well. That's because it's not really conceivable that a larger amount of peaceful effort can be tried in either case. There's no sanction that North Korea, for example, could undergo that it hasn't already. And Iran has oil.

 

Furthermore, small countries could attempt to justify the re-deployment of nuclear weapons because they face conventional threats from much larger countries. Since the threat of nuclear retaliation would no longer exist in your hypothetical world at that point, who could say that they were wrong?

 

This is the kind of flaw in your reasoning that renders the rest of your argument moot, and is why most people don't fall into that trap in the first place.

[JustStuit]

I think America, atleast, has shown that prohibition doesn't work too well.

[FreeThinker]

61 years and counting....

 

Yeh, not even one lifetime....

 

 

Yeah that "extreme pressure" has worked so well in the case of North Korea and Iran, hasn't it? We'll just TELL them not to re-establish their nuclear arms, and everything will work out great, right?

 

You can't even say that the reason current peaceful efforts has failed is because they're able to say that other people have them so they should as well. That's because it's not really conceivable that a larger amount of peaceful effort can be tried in either case. There's no sanction that North Korea, for example, could undergo that it hasn't already. And Iran has oil.

 

Furthermore, small countries could attempt to justify the re-deployment of nuclear weapons because they face conventional threats from much larger countries. Since the threat of nuclear retaliation would no longer exist in your hypothetical world at that point, who could say that they were wrong?

 

This is the kind of flaw in your reasoning that renders the rest of your argument moot, and is why most people don't fall into that trap in the first place.

 

I am not a politician to give you an exact plan to monitor nuclear development. These are the things that should be discussed between all the world powers. If our only hope is " lets nuke them back", what hope do we have? Even if we do keep the nuclear arsenal in the world, are you saying that we can not find another solution but " the ability to retaliation"? Obviously that is having no affect on Iran or North Korea.

 

You can have your children live in a world with nuclear bombs, I do not wish that upon my children.

[Pangloss]

(shrug) I surely can't fault the sentiment.

[bascule]

I think we're slowly starting to learn that a MAD policy is no longer applicable nowadays. I'd love to see complete nuclear disarmament and an international treaty banning the development of nuclear weapons. I'm afraid the only way it will come about is when some crazy middle eastern country (or terrorist group) nukes another middle eastern country (or Europe)

[aguy2]

I think we're slowly starting to learn that a MAD policy is no longer applicable nowadays.

 

Doesn't a diluted version of MAD seem to be working in regards to India and Pakistan?

 

aguy2

[Jim]

I think we're slowly starting to learn that a MAD policy is no longer applicable nowadays. I'd love to see complete nuclear disarmament and an international treaty banning the development of nuclear weapons. I'm afraid the only way it will come about is when some crazy middle eastern country (or terrorist group) nukes another middle eastern country (or Europe)

 

Why is MAD inapplicable? Our ability to assure the destruction of even small nuclear powers still acts as a deterrent. The M may now stand for Multilateral or Multinational instead of Mutual, but the policy is the same.

 

If a nuke were to go off, there would be even less chance of disarmament. In any event, complete disarmament would be far more dangerous than the status quo.

[Jim]

If ' date=' hypothetically speaking, China tried to rearm, the rest of the world would be in danger. Therefore the Chinese would come under extreme pressure from the rest of the world and their efforts could be stopped in time. At least the world would stand a chance to stop the Chinese from rearming.

[/quote']

Ergh, I've had two long posts zapped by the spell checker hanging so I'm going to keep this brief and not check my spelling which is always dangerous.

 

My premise is that a state of zero nuclear weapons and delivery platforms would be highly dangerous because we can't disinvent the ability to rearm. Currently, only a madman would launch a first strike.

 

However, if we go to zero, it would be possible for a superpower to secretly or even openly begin to rearm and race to a point where they have a few weapons (e.g. 50 or so) on 2-3 MIRVed ICBMs. With this ability they could dominate the globe.

 

The risk that the other superpower could make such a move would guarantee that one of the superpowers (hopefully the US) would inevitably rush to rearm. (More accurately, this possibility would mean that no one would ever completely disarm but we are assuming for the sake of argument that we ever got to zero).

 

The superpower that has the 2-3 MIRVED ICBMs would know that its advantage is ephemeral and that it has to dominate the globe quickly or the advantage will be lost. The best case would be that the world rearms to the status quo.

 

Your only response to this risk is to argue the world would pressure a country such as China from rearming. What kind of pressure would be effective against the world's only nuclear power?

[Jim]

You can have your children live in a world with nuclear bombs, I do not wish that upon my children.

 

"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/quotes

[bascule]

Why is MAD inapplicable?

 

The biggest problem is the M does not apply. Iran is developing fission bombs (as opposed to hydrogen fusion bombs) which would produce a blast similar to the one seen at Hiroshima. It would devistate a city and create a large amount of fallout, but overall the damage would be relatively localized. Would anyone really want to respond to this by nuking Iran with a hydrogen warhead?

 

Our ability to assure the destruction of even small nuclear powers still acts as a deterrent.

 

That remains to be seen. As I said, MAD will only prove itself outmoded after we see a nuclear bomb used and we are forced to decide if nuclear retaliation is really the best option.

 

The M may now stand for Multilateral or Multinational instead of Mutual, but the policy is the same.

 

So if Iran were to use a fission bomb similar in yield to the one dropped on Hiroshima, how specifically do you think the world should retaliate? The above makes it sound like you would wish for nuclear retaliation. Are we really prepared for the ramifications of that kind of response?

 

If a nuke were to go off, there would be even less chance of disarmament.

 

That also remains to be seen. I am clearly forseeing a different response to the detonation of a nuclear bomb than you, although some clarification on the above issue would be much helpful.

[john5746]

Disarming our nuclear arsenal is a moot point in regards to Iran IMO. They would try to build one regardless of our status. And the "extreme" pressure to keep them from building one would be the same.

 

Our Nukes are intended as a defense against a superpower. I would imagine Russia and China would be the top candidates going forward. The more likely scenario might be a single bomb from a small country or group, but the unlikely buildup of a hostile China or Russia would be far more severe, if we got rid of our arsenal.

[bascule]

Our Nukes are intended as a defense against a superpower. I would imagine Russia and China would be the top candidates going forward. The more likely scenario might be a single bomb from a small country or group, but the unlikely buildup of a hostile China or Russia would be far more severe, if we got rid of our arsenal.

 

As much as it saddens me to say it, I see the legitimacy of preserving our nuclear arsenal so as to maintain a MAD policy with China.

 

Technologies that pose an existential risk are such a moral quagmire...

[Pangloss]

Ergh, I've had two long posts zapped by the spell checker hanging so I'm going to keep this brief and not check my spelling which is always dangerous.

 

Jim is that a board feature you're referring to there? I didn't realize this board had a spell checker built in but if you're having problems with it please let me know and I'll pass it along to an admin. Thanks.

[Jim]

Jim is that a board feature you're referring to there? I didn't realize this board had a spell checker built in but if you're having problems with it please let me know and I'll pass it along to an admin. Thanks.

 

I think it is my computer rebelling on me again. (The spell checker is in the uper right corner, an "ABC" over a check mark; it requires that you download an add on).

[Jim]

The biggest problem is the M does not apply. Iran is developing fission bombs (as opposed to hydrogen fusion bombs) which would produce a blast similar to the one seen at Hiroshima. It would devistate a city and create a large amount of fallout' date=' but overall the damage would be relatively localized. Would anyone really want to respond to this by nuking Iran with a hydrogen warhead?

[/quote']

If Iran took out NYC with a fission bomb and we had some way to know it was Iran, I do not know exactly what form of nuclear destruction we would visit on their country. We might use tactical nukes but I do not know.

 

 

 

That remains to be seen. As I said, MAD will only prove itself outmoded after we see a nuclear bomb used and we are forced to decide if nuclear retaliation is really the best option.

 

It is a deterrent; what remains to be seen is whether it will always be an effective deterrent.

 

So if Iran were to use a fission bomb similar in yield to the one dropped on Hiroshima, how specifically do you think the world should retaliate? The above makes it sound like you would wish for nuclear retaliation. Are we really prepared for the ramifications of that kind of response?

 

I would "wish" that it never happened at all. However, I have no doubt that if Iran took out a major United States city, the response would be nuclear.

 

That also remains to be seen. I am clearly forseeing a different response to the detonation of a nuclear bomb than you, although some clarification on the above issue would be much helpful.

 

True, we are all making predictions which remain to be seen. I just can't see disarmament as the immediate response to being hit with a nuclear weapon. Again, if we were to disarm completely, that would be a extremely dangerous situation.

[Pangloss]

I think it is my computer rebelling on me again. (The spell checker is in the uper right corner, an "ABC" over a check mark; it requires that you download an add on).

 

Hrm.... I don't see it, but I'm not the most observant person in the world. I'll pass it along to the admins.

[doG]

I think it is my computer rebelling on me again. (The spell checker is in the uper right corner, an "ABC" over a check mark; it requires that you download an add on).

You must be using some other software to compose you posts then. Neither the quick reply or advanced interfaces have the icon you're describing and I'm not aware of any "spell checker" add-ons for vBulletin.

[gcol]

You must be using some other software to compose you posts then. Neither the quick reply or advanced interfaces have the icon you're describing and I'm not aware of any "spell checker" add-ons for vBulletin.

 

When I use the quote option, I get an ABC with tickmark option (top right hand corner). Clicking on this invites the download of "iespell". I use IEexplorer.

[Jim]

You must be using some other software to compose you posts then. Neither the quick reply or advanced interfaces have the icon you're describing and I'm not aware of any "spell checker" add-ons for vBulletin.

 

I just use IE 6.0 but it must be something I've downloaded as an addon at some point. Thanks.

[gcol]

When I use the quote option, I get the ABC with tickmark (top right hand).

This invites mr to download "iespell", which I have not yet done. I use IE explorer version 6.

[doG]

When I use the quote option, I get an ABC with tickmark option (top right hand corner). Clicking on this invites the download of "iespell". I use IEexplorer.

Ah, it's a browser add-on, not part of the forum software.

[Pangloss]

I've passed this on to the Admins. Thanks!

[Jim]

Technologies that pose an existential risk are such a moral quagmire...

 

The fact that these weapons could obliterate our species requires us to think more clearly about this than anything else we discuss. We need to make our best calculation and adopt policies which increase the chances of our survival.

 

I don't see a moral issue. It isn't our fault that E=MC2 is imbedded in reality and allows for such destructive power. Given the inevitability of the discovery of such weapons, we are fortunate that nuclear weapons were first commanded by the United States instead of the Soviet Union or, worse, the Nazis.