Obama to call for nuclear disarmament

[bascule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090404/pl_nm/us_obama_europe

 

Wow. The dream of hippies everywhere, and Obama is actually going to try for it.

 

This is unprecedentedly awesome.

[The Bear's Key]

Excellent, bascule. Here's a related one too.

 

 

Analysis: Obama no-nukes pledge not so farfetched

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_nuclear_future_analysis

..a full-throated program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and even such realpolitik lions of foreign policy and arms control as George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.

.....

"This idea of a nuclear weapons-free world isn't sort of pie in the sky....and there are people who are very steeped in these national security issues who are promoting it."

 

 

Obama's version of "global zero" seems based on the following premises.

 

• Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they are worth, an expensive luxury for superpowers and a threat for the rest of the world.

 

• The size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals inspires nuclear starter-states such as China to add to their stockpiles and give non-nuclear states a reason to join the club.

 

• Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.

 

During the presidential campaign, Obama talked repeatedly about securing all nuclear weapons material within four years.

 

(The warmongers on TV might get angry. Perhaps. Bitch slap them. )

[Pangloss]

There was apparently a very productive meeting between the US and Russia at the G20 meeting, resulting in an agreement to reduce the arsenal, sign a new reduction agreement, and move forward on warhead destruction. There was also progress on getting Russia's assistance (real assistance) in dealing with Iran and North Korea, probably at a cost of expensive and unnecessary missile defense in Europe. Win, win, win.

[iNow]

And very soon after, North Korea spit on that call. A rocket fired last night:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/us/politics/06prexy.html?hp

 

 

What they did is already against the UN regulations, so more UN calls for no nukes won't likely do a whole lot.

 

As much as I like the spirit of the call to disarm, I'm a little less than optimistic. I'm reminded of the cliche comment, "If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

[ecoli]

Is anybody interested in this as a game theory problem? How do you enforce collective action, when it only benefits you when the whole group plays along and a cheater (N. Korea, maybe) drastically reduces the fitness of those who cooperate.

[bascule]

There are only two parties of any real significance: the United States and Russia.

 

As long as they're game the others don't really matter, until both the US and Russia get their arsenals whittled down to a few hundred nukes.

[iNow]

Don't forget China. US and Russia are key, but China is a close third.

[bascule]

Don't forget China. US and Russia are key, but China is a close third.

 

China's not a close third at all, but rather an order of magnitude less than the US, who is still #2 behind Russia. Generous estimates of the Chinese nuclear stockpile place it at about 500 warheads. There are over 5000 in the US arsenal.

[iNow]

My point was about "who has the strength to leverage such a change," not so much about who has the most of these things. If you'll permit, I think we're both correct, but it seems talking about different things.

[bascule]

China should definitely be part of the plan, but I certainly don't expect them to start dismantling nukes until the US and Russia have dismantled a lot more.

[The Bear's Key]

We can play the guessing game without knowledge of the variables they'll use to make it happen, but in the end I think the problem will be solved in a way that no one here would normally suspect. A innovative way that confounds our expectations (lacking access to their plans).

 

As much as I like the spirit of the call to disarm, I'm a little less than optimistic. I'm reminded of the cliche comment, "If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

 

Unfortunately, it seems Obama will keep a few nukes in stock.

 

He said he would not drop U.S. weapons unless other nations agreed to do the same, a tenet of old-school arms control, and promised to "maintain a nuclear deterrent that is strong, safe, secure and reliable."

 

Even so, it will be a huge step in a better direction.

 

As much as I like the spirit of the call to disarm, I'm a little less than optimistic. I'm reminded of the cliche comment, "If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

That philosophy is riddled with lack of foresight and ignores many variables, though. If the productive nations outlawed guns, you'd have no big enterprise making them by the millions. You'd have pieces of crap that don't shoot as efficiently or backfire unexpectedly more often.

 

Plus, if a criminal knew you were "loaded" they'd be more likely to shoot you in the back, then search your pockets, rather than ask you to empty your pockets at gunpoint.

 

But even if they drew a gun, you're already at a disadvantage unless you have a gun out pointed ahead everywhere you walk.

 

And if everyone carried a gun? The robber would just ask that you place your weapon on the ground, or hand it over to their buddy. Yes, gangs would be a more safer way to pull crime off neatly.

 

In the Wild West, anyone on the street might've had a gun. But criminals still robbed trains and lived a life of crime. More importantly, thugs still intimidated the public (commanded respect and/or instilled fear).

 

Lastly, who's more like to shoot the other -- an everyday person or a criminally mindset one?

 

I fully support the right to guns, but find the usual arguments to be weak. The strongest argument they could make, and should: it's protected in the Constitution.

 

But the usual complaints by the special interest might have other agendas not readily perceivable.

Edited April 6, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammar tweak

[Pangloss]

Okay, even I have to put my foot down on that potential topic shift. (grin) Let's not stray into confirmation of the analogies with gun control, please. I think we all agree that arguing whether that analogy is fully accurate tells us very little about the efficacy of nuclear armament control. (Not that I necessarily disagree with the analogy or even the response.)

[The Bear's Key]

You can migrate that last section of post #11 to a new thread if disruptive (and remove this post). I wouldn't like to deny someone the opportunity to respond because of a clamp-down on topic breaks.

 

Just move the last iNow quote and my response to a new thread, if you see the need (or leave it and just copy it over -- thanks).

[Pangloss]

Ok, I went ahead and copied it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39753

 

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, there, it just seems like it has the potential to somewhat sidetrack this thread. Thanks.

[Sisyphus]

Is anybody interested in this as a game theory problem? How do you enforce collective action, when it only benefits you when the whole group plays along and a cheater (N. Korea, maybe) drastically reduces the fitness of those who cooperate.

 

It certainly can be treated as a game theory problem. I'm not entirely sure the rules you state are correct, however. Let's say that every nation but North Korea completely disarms all nuclear weapons. What happens? We've all lost our nuclear deterrant capabilities, but what does that actually mean? Well, the immediate, guaranteed result is that we save a lot of money, so all other things being equal gives everyone but NK a guaranteed advantage.

 

But what of the strategic situation? From the zero sum Cold War perspective, a sole nuclear power unchecked by mutually assured destruction would have an incentive to strike, to destroy its rival and therefore remove its chief obstacle to global dominance.

 

But that applies to two powers who are otherwise roughly equal who would gain from annihilating one another, and could do so otherwise without major consequence. Would that be applicable for a "rogue state" like North Korea? I'm thinking not. Certainly they gain a benefit from having nuclear weapons and not using them. Namely, as a general deterrant. "If you try to conquer my country, I will use a nuclear weapon before you succeed." Please note that even in that situation, they don't gain any benefit from actually using it. The situation is a bit like a hostage taker wearing a vest made of dynamite. If it actually came to using it, nuking Seoul, say, or Seattle would certainly not save their regime. In fact, if anything, it would further guarantee their destruction, meaning there's a de fact MAD in place even without the presence of other nuclear powers, simply because of the huge power imbalance. No, even though they would be the only nuclear power, the only advantage to be gained from nuclear weapons would be in not using them, but threatening to do so should they ever be forced into a position where they have nothing left to lose. And that situation is no different whether or not anyone else has nuclear weapons as well.

[iNow]

But that applies to two powers who are otherwise roughly equal who would gain from annihilating one another, and could do so otherwise without major consequence. Would that be applicable for a "rogue state" like North Korea? I'm thinking not. Certainly they gain a benefit from having nuclear weapons and not using them. Namely, as a general deterrant. "If you try to conquer my country, I will use a nuclear weapon before you succeed."

On top of that, one of the motivations that North Korea has for keeping such weapons is that they provide a way to obtain food and aid for their people. Basically, the leadership of the country cannot adequately provide for it's people, but they are also too proud to ask for help from others, as well as too distrusted by their neighbors. So they engage in this nuclear noise making and saber rattling which forces new negotiations to begin with others whereby other countries agree to supply food and medicinal assistance for the North Korean people. Having this nuclear capacity is thus a way to gain the benefit of that aid without losing face and openly requesting it.

 

I offer this point to the thread as it's another source of benefit to consider in the game theory approach... positive outcome from the logic for having nukes beyond just the "potential annihilation of opponents."

[Sisyphus]

On top of that, one of the motivations that North Korea has for keeping such weapons is that they provide a way to obtain food and aid for their people. Basically, the leadership of the country cannot adequately provide for it's people, but they are also too proud to ask for help from others, as well as too distrusted by their neighbors. So they engage in this nuclear noise making and saber rattling which forces new negotiations to begin with others whereby other countries agree to supply food and medicinal assistance for the North Korean people. Having this nuclear capacity is thus a way to gain the benefit of that aid without losing face and openly requesting it.

 

I offer this point to the thread as it's another source of benefit to consider in the game theory approach... positive outcome from the logic for having nukes beyond just the "potential annihilation of opponents."

 

A good point, and actually mutually exclusive with the other benefits. With deterrance, the value is in having them but not using them. With obtaining aid, the value is in plausibly being able to acquire them, but not having them. It also reveals that any promises they make for permanent disarmament are likely lies, but they would likely be happy to stay perpetually on the verge of armament in exchange for periodic carrots.

[The Bear's Key]

Please note that even in that situation, they don't gain any benefit from actually using it. The situation is a bit like a hostage taker wearing a vest made of dynamite. If it actually came to using it, nuking Seoul, say, or Seattle would certainly not save their regime. In fact, if anything, it would further guarantee their destruction, meaning there's a de fact MAD in place even without the presence of other nuclear powers, simply because of the huge power imbalance..

Nice thinking. Of course. So even if a rogue nation *cheated* and detonated a nuke on a rival, the world's combined military power is going to descend on that nation swiftly and with ultimate finality to its government.

 

Having a nuke or two doesn't give you military power. Just a one-shot deal which in the end (no pun here) translates into: suicide.

[Saryctos]

Nice thinking. Of course. So even if a rogue nation *cheated* and detonated a nuke on a rival, the world's combined military power is going to descend on that nation swiftly and with ultimate finality to its government.

 

Having a nuke or two doesn't give you military power. Just a one-shot deal which in the end (no pun here) translates into: suicide.

 

However, if you have a ruling gov't that is ideologically separated from their populace how would you justify a response against them?

[The Bear's Key]

However, if you have a ruling gov't that is ideologically separated from their populace how would you justify a response against them?

If you mean a response against the populace, then you might read my post again. It did say...

 

the world's combined military power is going to descend on that nation swiftly and with ultimate finality to its government

 

(which are the perpetrators, not the citizens)

[SH3RL0CK]

What about Iran? Iran has a very strong, religiously motivated desire to destry Israel. Should only Iran have nukes (not that Israel would ever give them up), I think it possible they would nuke Israel. What would/could the world do then?

 

The west might impose sanctions, which would be tough to enforce as the west needs the Iranian oil. Should sanctions be imposed, I am fairly certain other countries would be more than happy to assist Iran in bypassing them.

 

The world could militarily attack Iran. That would be tough considering Iran would be the only nation with nukes...could Iranian nuclear armed missiles reach Rome? London? Washington? Wouldn't most nations chose to not have their capital destroyed rather than take on Iran and risk being nuked themselves (I would hope the SDI would be working well in this case).

 

Or the west could choose to criticise, but otherwise ignore the attack. This would have the effect of encouraging further actions by Iran...maybe they would retaliate against the Iraqis next for the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's? Maybe they next take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia by force, thus controlling the bulk of the worlds oil? Really, having capitulated once, at what point would the world then be willing to stand up to them?

 

As logn as Israel "exists", I doubt that any actions from the US will be sufficient to cause Iran to stop trying to develop their own. Particularly since Israel probably has nuclear weapons of its own.

[The Bear's Key]

The world could militarily attack Iran. That would be tough considering Iran would be the only nation with nukes...could Iranian nuclear armed missiles reach Rome? London? Washington? Wouldn't most nations chose to not have their capital destroyed rather than take on Iran and risk being nuked themselves (I would hope the SDI would be working well in this case).

Iran doesn't have weapons yet, but it might be trying. Regardless, if the world decided to eradicate nukes, and Iran decided to go ahead with nukes production anyway, before they'd even get a few ready the world has all the political and international capital necessary to use monumental, overwhelming force. Again -- just vs its government structure, to disable their effective leadership.

[Saryctos]

Iran doesn't have weapons yet, but it might be trying. Regardless, if the world decided to eradicate nukes, and Iran decided to go ahead with nukes production anyway, before they'd even get a few ready the world has all the political and international capital necessary to use monumental, overwhelming force. Again -- just vs its government structure, to disable their effective leadership.

 

Bus as we've seen with Iraq, you can't just topple a gov't with military force and expect the populace, even if they were in disagreement, to sit idle while they are invaded or bombed.

[The Bear's Key]

Bus as we've seen with Iraq, you can't just topple a gov't with military force and expect the populace, even if they were in disagreement, to sit idle while they are invaded or bombed.

Completely different. That was one nation going practically alone, under dubious rationale.

 

We are pretty smart as a world. Remember, a nuke-free planet is going to have more capital and wholesale support than the arrogant leader with a controversial election from the most powerful nation.

 

And it wouldn't be an occupying force, or if it were, it'd be more like a U.N. one that remained.

 

...before they'd even get a few ready the world has all the political and international capital necessary to use monumental, overwhelming force. Again -- just vs its government structure, to disable their effective leadership.

[bascule]

The world could militarily attack Iran. That would be tough considering Iran would be the only nation with nukes...

 

Unless they never get nukes in the first place... and were they to use them in an otherwise nuclear free world, they would most certainly never use them again.