Nuclear Disarmament

[bascule]

ND is something I'm quite passionate about (a passion which only intensified after visiting the Hiroshima Peace Park). I suppose it stems from the whole Singularitarianism thing and worrying about existential risks, i.e. ways humanity can annihilate itself. Nuclear weapons are definitely on the top of the list for now.

 

On this thread revprez asked me why I dislike the administration's stance on Pakistan, believing my thoughts to stem from the actions of A.Q. Khan. And they certainly do: in addition to selling centrifuge designs and components to North Korea and Iran, Khan was the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.

 

Non-proliferation agreements have limited "legal" ownership of nuclear weapons to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: US, UK, Russia, China, and France. However, not all nations have signed the treaty, and we know for certain that India and Pakistan have both obtained nuclear weapons, while most speculate that North Korea and Israel have as well.

 

I do not codone ownership of nuclear weapons by the members of the UN Security Council, but I most certainly am opposed to nuclear proliferation. This is why I find it rather odd that Bush regards Pakistan as our ally. I think it was a really telling moment during the presidential debates when Kerry listed nuclear proliferation as his number one worry, and Bush said the same, but was quick to add "in the hands of a terrorist enemy". I guess Bush simply doesn't care about nuclear proliferation unless terrorism is involved.

 

I'm quite hopeful that in the future, we will be able to set up a planetary monitoring network for weapons grade nuclear material and, once that is in place, I really believe nuclear disarmament could begin. I don't think nuclear disarmament is something that's really feasible until everyone can be assured that no one else has nuclear weapons.

 

Sadly I feel that this is something that won't happen until a rogue state like Iran actually uses a nuclear weapon against one of its enemies...

[Jim]

I think it was a really telling moment during the presidential debates when Kerry listed nuclear proliferation as his number one worry, and Bush said the same, but was quick to add "in the hands of a terrorist enemy". I guess Bush simply doesn't care about nuclear proliferation unless terrorism is involved.

 

I would have to give the same answer - WMDs in the hands of a terrorist group is more worrisome than WMDs in the hands of a nation state. That doesn't mean I don't also worry about proliferation.

 

I'm quite hopeful that in the future' date=' we will be able to set up a planetary monitoring network for weapons grade nuclear material and, once that is in place, I really believe nuclear disarmament could begin. I don't think nuclear disarmament is something that's really feasible until everyone can be assured that no one else has nuclear weapons.

 

Sadly I feel that this is something that won't happen until a rogue state like Iran actually uses a nuclear weapon against one of its enemies...[/quote']

 

It is impossible to miscalculate currently. A nuclear exchange means the end of civilization if not the species.

 

Even if nuclear programs could be monitored with 100% accuracy, countries would have to calculate the months or days another superpower could rearm. Let's say the US calculates that China could have a nation killing program rebuilt within 2.5 months whereas we think our country could rearm to that level in 2 months. What would the US do if it felt that China would eclipse our ability to rearm in the next 10 years?

 

Nothing says these calculations would be accurate. Leaders would be presented with probabilities and time frames that would be uncertain. Countries might have very different calculations which might push them to both break out with a very dangerous period when one side reaches nuclear dominance.

[pcs]

ND is something I'm quite passionate about (a passion which only intensified after visiting the Hiroshima Peace Park). I suppose it stems from the whole Singularitarianism thing and worrying about existential risks, i.e. ways humanity can annihilate itself. Nuclear weapons are definitely on the top of the list for now.

 

To say you're passionate about nuclear disarmament is about as useless a sentinment as saying you're passionate about breathing. The question is how thoughtful and informed your position is on the subject.

 

On this thread revprez, asked me why I dislike the administration's stance on Pakistan

 

Actually, I asked that question--and I directed it towards the entire opposition. More to the point, it was a rhetorical question aimed at illustrating the bankruptcy of a particular political tact of the Democratic party.

 

...believing my thoughts to stem from the actions of A.Q. Khan. And they certainly do: in addition to selling centrifuge designs and components to North Korea and Iran, Khan was the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.

 

He's also a loving father and loves walks in the parks. My point is just don't throw out the guy's resume and say "Hah! Bush fails if he does anything less than extradite the man." Explain to us how he's a danger now.

 

Non-proliferation agreements have limited "legal" ownership of nuclear weapons to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: US, UK, Russia, China, and France. However, not all nations have signed the treaty, and we know for certain that India and Pakistan have both obtained nuclear weapons, while most speculate that North Korea and Israel have as well.

 

I'm less concerned about the non-proliferation treaty than I am about...say...proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst regimes of increasing threat to US national security. In other words, I don't particularly care whether Israel or India have the bomb, I have a strong interest in Pakistan's nuclear status, and I definitely don't want to see North Korea and Iran have any weapons whatsoever. My question is why would the Democrats harp on Israel, India and Pakistan and cave before North Korea and Iran?

 

This is why I find it rather odd that Bush regards Pakistan as our ally.

 

I don't, partly because Pakistan has historically been our ally but largely because I can read a map. The same argument pretty much flies for Saudi Arabia (sans nukes), Israel and India.

 

I think it was a really telling moment during the presidential debates when Kerry listed nuclear proliferation as his number one worry, and Bush said the same, but was quick to add "in the hands of a terrorist enemy". I guess Bush simply doesn't care about nuclear proliferation unless terrorism is involved.

 

Well whoopdie doo. God forgive us for ignoring the great Israeli nuclear threat. Need I remind you Pakistan and India have been nuclear powers for nearly a decade now? If Kerry worried so much, why didn't he run in 1998? Did general nuclear proliferation just become a national security concern?

 

I'm quite hopeful that in the future, we will be able to set up a planetary monitoring network for weapons grade nuclear material and, once that is in place, I really believe nuclear disarmament could begin.

 

We already have a planetary monitoring network for weapons grade nuclear material. It's called the IAEA. It works when countries capable of generating the material cooperate. It doesn't when...well...they don't. And there isn't some magic technology that's going to change that.

 

I don't think nuclear disarmament is something that's really feasible until everyone can be assured that no one else has nuclear weapons.

 

Which, of course, is impossible. That's why we assume that an untrusted regime is up to nefarious things and leave the others alone. We only have so much force to back up the agreements.

 

Sadly I feel that this is something that won't happen until a rogue state like Iran actually uses a nuclear weapon against one of its enemies...

 

Is that why the opposition is so hell bent on letting Iran get away with it?

[Sisyphus]

I'd say the only real threat from nuclear weapons comes from religious fundamentalists, as they're the only ones crazy enough to actually use them. Everybody else must realize that there can't possibly be any advantage in initiating a nuclear conflict, which is simply to guarantee one's own complete destruction. That's why terrorists are the primary threat, followed by fundamentalist regimes (like Iran), followed by nations which might easily become fundamentalist regimes in the near future, like Pakistan. I'm highly suspicious of their government as is, let alone if popular sentiment was allowed to rule. Our "alliance" with them is purely pragmatic and might easily become very troublesome.

 

On the other hand, contrary to most people, I'm not worried about secular states like N. Korea or India. Anyone not actually bent on their own fiery death can be trusted not to push the button. A much bigger concern for me is Russia, which I'm not confident are competent to keep track of their own nukes.

[bascule]

...why would the Democrats harp on Israel, India and Pakistan and cave before North Korea and Iran?

 

Composition fallacy. You are taking the opinions of certain Democrats (which ones I don't know) and attempting to make it out to be the entire party platform.

 

I, for one, support a military intervention in Iran. I'd like to see special ops forces go in and take out their nuclear facilities.

[Severian]

I' date=' for one, support a military intervention in Iran. I'd like to see special ops forces go in and take out their nuclear facilities.

[/quote']

 

I really hope you don't mean that. That would be an act of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state, i.e. an act of war. There is no excuse for that.

 

In other words, I don't particularly care whether Israel or India have the bomb

 

I do. In fact, out of all the states which have nuclear capability, I think Israel is the one most likely to use them. Given that they are rather geographically close to home, I am not comfortable at all. (Although, to be fair, they would probably be fired away from Europe... I hope.)

[pcs]

Composition fallacy.

 

You need to stop dropping fallacies like it's the Asperger's mailing list--you're dealing with assertions of fact.

 

I, for one, support a military intervention in Iran. I'd like to see special ops forces go in and take out their nuclear facilities.

 

Good for you. Talk to your buddies.

[bascule]

You need to stop dropping fallacies like it's the Asperger's mailing list--you're dealing with assertions of fact.

 

Source? Find me some official policy where the Democrats assert the position you claim they do. Otherwise stop prefixing your statements with "The Democrats"

[pcs]

Source?

 

Nope. I'm simply illustrating why you shouldn't allege fallacies where none exist.

 

Find me some official policy where the Democrats assert the position you claim they do.

 

I could, but I won't. At least not in this thread. Probably in the other, in defense of a position that I've actually put forward.

 

Otherwise stop prefixing your statements with "The Democrats"

 

But I will continue to do so.

[bascule]

Nope. I'm simply illustrating why you shouldn't allege fallacies where none exist.

 

Okay, it wasn't a fallacy, you're just wrong. Glad we cleared that up.

[Jim]

Okay, it wasn't a fallacy, you're just wrong. Glad we cleared that up.

 

Not to start this back up again.... okay, more honestly, in the hopes of starting this back up again, I've yet to hear someone articulate how disarmament would be safer. Unless you can disinvent the technology, there would still be the pressure to push the button although that process might take a few months.

[bascule]

I see MAD as becoming an increasingly antequated strategy, especially as nuclear weapons begin to fall into the hands of geographically disparate terrorist groups. If a fission bomb were used on a major US city, what would really be the proper retaliation? Is a nuclear response (especially with a fusion bomb) really in order?

[Jim]

I see MAD as becoming an increasingly antequated strategy, especially as nuclear weapons begin to fall into the hands of geographically disparate terrorist groups. If a fission bomb were used on a major US city, what would really be the proper retaliation? Is a nuclear response (especially with a fusion bomb) really in order?

 

MAD has never been satisfactory but I ask again why complete disarmament would be better. The technology to rearm would still exist although the time frame for rearmament to the point of global dominance would be uncertain. I can't think of any situation more dangerous.

[Illuminati]

My only question is how can we expect other countries to discontinue pursuit of nuclear weapons when we (the united states) will almost certainly never disarm our nuclear weapons.

[Sisyphus]

My only question is how can we expect other countries to discontinue pursuit of nuclear weapons when we (the united states) will almost certainly never disarm our nuclear weapons.

 

By bullying them. Other countries gain a lot by being on our good side, and lose a lot by being on our bad side. Is it fair? No, not really. Is it effective? Somewhat...

[Jim]

By bullying them. Other countries gain a lot by being on our good side, and lose a lot by being on our bad side. Is it fair? No, not really. Is it effective? Somewhat...

 

If effective, will it help ensure the survival of our species if fewer countries have nukes? Absolutely.

 

The "fair" question is secondary.

 

Besides, As I've repeatedly argued, a world without any nukes but with still the ability to rearm would be highly dangerous.

[Sisyphus]

You misunderstand. I was responding to the question of how we can expect them not to pursue nuclear weapons. We can and do with economic and military bullying that has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" and doesn't even always work. Sometimes (like with N. Korea) it even makes things much worse. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

[Jim]

You misunderstand. I was responding to the question of how we can expect them not to pursue nuclear weapons. We can and do with economic and military bullying that has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" and doesn't even always work. Sometimes (like with N. Korea) it even makes things much worse. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

 

 

Sysyphus, I understood and was agreeing with you.