Obama to call for nuclear disarmament

[Mr Skeptic]

The problem with only one nation having nukes (they'd need several) is that then they could do anything they like, and no one would dare attack them. Because if their attacker posed no threat, the attack would be foolish, but if the attacker did pose a threat, they'd get nuked.

 

This applies within the government as well. A government with nukes could potentially use the threat of nukes against a potential rebellion.

 

Still, I don't see any reason for the absurd amount of nukes we have. We already have a huge army, which is far more useful than a bunch of nukes that we can't use except under exceptional circumstances (even if we could technically use them, our people would never stand for it).

[iNow]

I see a lot of false assumptions being made in this thread. Let's be clear. Just because a country has nukes does NOT mean they are immune to attack, strategic action, or take-over.

 

They may have greater ability to leverage others, but it's false to assume that just because one has nukes they're impervious to attack or defeat.

[The Bear's Key]

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 just to elaborate on that bolded point (didn't get to it before), I'm not saying military and international force would be top on the list. The combined ingenuity of the world can hardly be matched by a rogue nation's severely grandiose-dreaming leadership.

[Pangloss]

I see a lot of false assumptions being made in this thread.

 

QFT. One of them may ultimately be the assumption that Obama will eliminate nuclear weapons. His statements are exactly the same as the kinds of statements made by Ronald Reagan in the mid 1980s, wishing and hoping for a world where blah blah blah, while behind his hand saying that under no circumstances would we be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.

[bascule]

They may have greater ability to leverage others, but it's false to assume that just because one has nukes they're impervious to attack or defeat.

 

Yes, and let's be clear on another thing: Iran isn't going to produce a thermonuclear warhead. If they make a nuclear weapon, it's going to be a simple fission device with a yield in the kiloton range.

 

To put that in perspective: more people died in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo during World War 2 than died in the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski combined (source). The long term deaths from radiation exposure would eventually tip the scales, but point being that in the kiloton range, similar devastation can be wrought by conventional attacks. The US military is more than capable of firebombing Tehran into oblivion.

[SH3RL0CK]

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.

 

We do not believe Iran has nuclear weapons. Intelligence can be incomplete or misleading. Either way, it is probably only a matter of time until they do have nuclear weapons and a delivery system for it. I think its a question of when, not if.

 

To Bascule: I don't necessarily agree that Iran would stop with just a small fission bomb, they might indeed proceed with developing large fussion bombs, neutron bombs, etc. And even if they do not, a few fission bombs with a decent delivery system are certainly more than enough to do immense damage, particularly to a small nation like Israel and to provide adequate protection against a military response by the US or EU... disregarding potentially devestating destruction of their civilian populations, tactical nukes could also disable any invading naval or land forces intent on retaliation. If they were the only nation with nukes, I agree with you they would only need to use them once (and then they would essentially rule the world until such time as other nations re-developed nukes).

 

I'm not all convinced the world will necessarily stop Iran (though I suspect Israel feels they must do something). The world certainly did not stop N. Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. from gaining nuclear weapons. Why should Iranian situation be any different than Pakistan or N. Korea? Please elaborate on what, exactly, the world will do to disable the leadership of Iran before they get nuclear weapons?

 

I also completely agree that

I see a lot of false assumptions being made in this thread.

[GutZ]

I don't care how many nukes Iran has...they launch one and they will lose their country. They are not just going to go mindlessly launching nukes. They are not in a good place to start pissing off the world. Iran is not that dumb, and they can't launch 300 nukes at the same time leveling the whole world at once so...It would be in their best interest to follow suite if this happens.

 

The arms race will never end...We have to stop it at one point or we'll always try to trump other nations. I don't want there to be hydrogen bomb being stockpiled, or any advanced weaponry that can take out a single country in one blow because we are constantly competiting to put our unfriendly neighbours in check.

[SH3RL0CK]

I don't care how many nukes Iran has...they launch one and they will lose their country.

 

How? How would they lose their country?

 

Seriously, if Iran has nukes and a decent delivery system which they are also working on, many nations are going to be VERY hesitant to declare war for fear of retaliation. And its not like Iran wouldn't have allies, particularly in the Middle East (Especially if they destroy Israel). And the world does need their oil, they could probably buy allies (such as China and India), or at least buy neutrality with these nations, with favorable trade arrangements. An arrangement with Russia might also be possible with Iranian influence/help regarding the Russian problems in Chechnya.

 

I'd like to point out a conventional war against them would be exceedingly difficult (think of Iraq times 5). The US was able to oust Saddaam and stablize Iraq to where a new government is now in place, but that took most of our abilities. Could the world muster up 5 times this force to oust the Iranian leaders? I personally doubt it.

 

Add to this that, having nuclear weapons means they could use tactical nukes to defend themselves...they could push one button and the US/Allied Fleet in the Indian Ocean is vaporized... It would be most difficult to win a war by conventional means against nuclear weapons since any stronghold (i.e. naval forces, invasion fleet, ground bases, home cities) could be readily destroyed.

 

 

The arms race will never end...We have to stop it at one point

I agree the arms race will never end. Which is the better solution: 1) trying to stop it by unilaterally laying down our weapons and expecting/hoping everyone else does likewise or 2) making sure we win/are always winning the arms race?

 

The answer depends, of course, on your philosopy of other people. I would personally prefer a position of strength over a position of weakness.

Edited April 7, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[bascule]

We do not believe Iran has nuclear weapons.

 

The IAEA is pretty damn sure. While they are enriching uranium it is nowhere near weapons grade.

 

Either way, it is probably only a matter of time until they do have nuclear weapons and a delivery system for it. I think its a question of when, not if.

 

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since there's no real evidence they actually have a weapons program.

 

I've been worried about Iran for quite some time, but the fact they don't do much besides saber rattling has slowly eroded my concerns.

 

To Bascule: I don't necessarily agree that Iran would stop with just a small fission bomb, they might indeed proceed with developing large fussion bombs, neutron bombs, etc.

 

Ooookay, well we'll cross that bridge when we get there...

[Mr Skeptic]

2) making sure we win/are always winning the arms race?

 

The answer depends, of course, on your philosopy of other people. I would personally prefer a position of strength over a position of weakness.

 

At some point, it does not matter who is winning the arms race. If I have 10,000 nukes and you have 10,000,000,000 nukes (a million times more), are you winning the arms race?

[Sisyphus]

At some point, it does not matter who is winning the arms race. If I have 10,000 nukes and you have 10,000,000,000 nukes (a million times more), are you winning the arms race?

 

One of my favorite quotes from Carl Sagan is comparing the nuclear arms race to two guys standing waste deep in gasoline, one holding three matches and the other holding five.

[SH3RL0CK]

At some point, it does not matter who is winning the arms race. If I have 10,000 nukes and you have 10,000,000,000 nukes (a million times more), are you winning the arms race?

 

Agreed. I have no problem with reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons, for the very reason you state. That, and I'm sure it costs considerable money to maintain these...in fact S. Africa once had nuclear weapons and has since dismantled them as they realized it cost a considerable amount of their money and did not provide them with any meaningful benefit. I beleive Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, however, are different situations.

 

But my main point regarding "winning the arms race" is that there has to be a credible deterent available for us (or anyone) to take a meaningful stand. Completely eliminating our nuclear weapons takes away one of the biggest deterents we have against any other nation with (or striving to acheive) nuclear weapons, and IMO isn't outweighed at all by the negligible "moral standing" we gain by doing so.

 

To Bascule: As far as claims by Iran that they are not trying to develop WMDs, well I supose this could be the case. Its really hard to know for certain now isn't it? After all, Iran could simply have a very long timeframe in mind...develop a "peaceful" nuclear power industry and "satelite" launch capacility. Then transfer this technology over to the military sector once these are in place.

 

But then, Iran isn't the only concern. There are claims of Syria trying to develop nukes for example, and its almost certain Israel has them.

[The Bear's Key]

Like any human component, we must exercise foresight to maintain an optimal level. Use it or lose it.

 

I also completely agree that

I see a lot of false assumptions being made in this thread.

You hit the nail smack! right on the head -- let's see.....

 

Seriously, if Iran has nukes and a decent delivery system which they are also working on, many nations are going to be VERY hesitant to declare war for fear of retaliation.

Major assumption?

 

 

I'd like to point out a conventional war against them would be exceedingly difficult (think of Iraq times 5). The US was able to oust Saddaam and stablize Iraq to where a new government is now in place, but that took most of our abilities. Could the world muster up 5 times this force to oust the Iranian leaders?

Yes. Far beyond that. Remember, Bush sent the U.S. practically alone with a few strays tagging along for posturing a supposed "coalition".

 

Add to this that, having nuclear weapons means they could use tactical nukes to defend themselves...they could push one button and the US/Allied Fleet in the Indian Ocean is vaporized...

Highly doubtful. They'd need satellite covearge to know location of ships, not to mention our air power isn't targetable by nukes. And even as ships neared land, they wouldn't be all huddled together as a gift for Iran's leader.

 

Not only that, but remember how many SCUDs actually reached their goals against Patriot missiles? The same with nukes, knocked from the air like the SCUDs with common missiles, and by spending our concentration mostly on interception rather than nuclear retaliation, it's more likely we'd refine the defense capabilites even more.

 

I like to play strategy games -- not the warfare kinds usually -- but if you want to play with you having Iran's resources including 20 nukes and I having only the developed world's non-nuclear technology, resources and military power, I'd likely wipe you off the map and have fewer casualties.

 

I agree the arms race will never end. Which is the better solution: 1) trying to stop it by unilaterally laying down our weapons and expecting/hoping everyone else does likewise or 2) making sure we win/are always winning the arms race?

 

The answer depends, of course, on your philosopy of other people. I would personally prefer a position of strength over a position of weakness.

Foresight. Extrapolate a bit down the line to WGDs, or weapons of global destruction. And say many nations had at least one. Tell us, where'd the deterrent go?

 

But my main point regarding "winning the arms race" is that there has to be a credible deterent available for us (or anyone) to take a meaningful stand.....

That position has been lost, it's old news. The weapons have become hand-transportable, in suitcases or more easily concealed packages.

 

Which is due to lack of foresight, like the people who didn't account for Y2K -- that a year 2000 would ever come around. Funny how it didn't become a gloabl realization until the last minute practically. So think ahead, you're way better off than making predictions using isolated variables.

Edited April 7, 2009 by The Bear's Key
facts corrections/clarifications

[SH3RL0CK]

Like any human component, we must exercise foresight to maintain an optimal level. Use it or lose it.

 

 

You hit the nail smack! right on the head -- let's see.....

 

 

Major assumption?

fair enough, it is my assumption that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program...though you fail to see my point. My point is, that it is now possible for a rogue regime to develop nuclear weapons (i.e. Pakistan and Israel have nukes; N. Korea might). And having nuclear weapons enables a said regime to exercise considerably more power to do things which might be unpleasant to those around them. If more responsible nations (such as France) do not have sufficient resources to stand up to rouge nations, the evil rulers will be able to do despicable things. I do not believe the US, EU, etc. would be able to counter nuclear threats without having nuclear weapons of their own.

 

I should point what I beleive to be your major assumptions to be fair to you. It seems to me that you believe should the US, Russia, China, Britian, France completely eliminate their nuclear stockpiles, then N. Korea, Iran (?) and any other would-be nations would likewise do so. I strongly disagree.

 

 

Yes. Far beyond that. Remember, Bush sent the U.S. practically alone with a few strays tagging along for posturing a supposed "coalition".

But a very large portion (IIRC, about 50%...I'll try to look up the reference when i get more time) of the worlds military budget is the US forces. And I wouldn't call Great Britian's forces "posturing", nor would I consider them at all insignificant. So having more nations really doesn't add a whole lot here IMO.

 

 

Highly doubtful. They'd need satellite covearge to know location of ships, not to mention our air power isn't targetable by nukes. And even as ships neared land, they wouldn't be all huddled together as a gift for Iran's leader.

 

Not only that, but remember how many SCUDs actually reached their goals against Patriot missiles? The same with nukes, knocked from the air like the SCUDs with common missiles, and by spending our concentration mostly on interception rather than nuclear retaliation, it's more likely we'd refine the defense capabilites even more.

 

I like to play strategy games -- not the warfare kinds usually -- but if you want to play with you having Iran's resources including 20 nukes and I having only the developed world's non-nuclear technology, resources and military power, I'd likely wipe you off the map and have fewer casualties.

 

Now you are making assumptions about how Iran (for example) would play. If we were to send an amphibious invasion to Iran, this force must enter the gulf of Oman...and satellite coverage would not be necessary to monitor this region and nuke an invasion force. Or the US fleet could be nuked when "discovered" by an Iranian fishing vessel at which time the atomic bombing of Tel Aviv would immediately commence. There are lots of other possibilities..you could try to use your imagination here

Foresight. Extrapolate a bit down the line to WGDs, or weapons of global destruction. And say many nations had at least one. Tell us, where'd the deterrent go?

I'd like to point out that the US has not been attacked by another nation (AQ is an exception) in the past 50 years. Certainly both Great Britian and Japan (whom the US has fought wars in the past) have no intention of any military intervention during this time period. Do you really think that Stalin, who and annexed many eastern european nations, or parts of nations, such as Poland and Finland, would have been less aggresive had the US not had nuclear weapons? Or would Stalin have tried for more? Seems like its works pretty good to me. Don't misunderstand me, I'd like there to be a better way. But some ruthless people only understand force and unfortunately they occasionally do rule over others. Hitler, Stalin, and many other evil people who happened to rule over others were never stopped by international condemnation or the like.

 

 

That position has been lost, it's old news. The weapons have become hand-transportable, in suitcases or more easily concealed packages.

Not really. We could still retaliate against whoever did this. And this is not the only possible scenario...a single nation with the only nuclear weapons could demand - and get - favorable treaties and trade agreements for example. We have already discussed in this thread how N. Korea uses the threat of developing a nuclear weapon to get foreign aid.

 

Which is due to lack of foresight, like the people who didn't account for Y2K -- that a year 2000 would ever come around. Funny how it didn't become a gloabl realization until the last minute practically. So think ahead, you're way better off than making predictions using isolated variables.

Well, the Y2K bug turned out to be insignificant. It seems people did think ahead here and did what they had to do before a crisis occured.

 

We seem to come from a different set of underlying assumptions regarding how people act, so unless we can address these issues, I don't think we will resolve this difference. But nonetheless, it won't matter. Obama is merely posturing for a headline here, I'm sure the US will not become nuclear free.

Edited April 8, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
to correct spelling errors and clarify

[Sisyphus]

It's spelled R-O-G-U-E.

 

*retreats back into the shadows*

[SH3RL0CK]

It's spelled R-O-G-U-E.

 

*retreats back into the shadows*

 

Corrected on the original post. Thank you.

[The Bear's Key]

It's spelled R-O-G-U-E.

*retreats back into the shadows*

Can't retreat, she got you.

[Mr Skeptic]

One of my favorite quotes from Carl Sagan is comparing the nuclear arms race to two guys standing waste deep in gasoline, one holding three matches and the other holding five.

 

It's spelled R-O-G-U-E.

 

*retreats back into the shadows*

 

On that note, it's spelled W-A-I-S-T.

[Sisyphus]

Well, that was inevitable. Carry on.