It seems to me that the real question should be why the State–or any state–is allowed by the world’s population to possess the power to bring about species extinction with the mere push of a button. Granting this power to any individual or group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned they are or purport to be, is, frankly, completely insane. Yet that is the state of things and we just roll along like it is a normal and acceptable condition of modern existence. "
I didn’t want to derail the thread which this was posted in, and I think we can all agree that such an important subject deserves its own discussion.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
Nuclear weapons have a stabilizing effect on relations among nuclear weapons states. They are much less willing to resort to force to achieve their foreign policy objectives when the risk of nuclear escalation exists. They primarily serve as deterrents, and as such, they are inherently defensive weapons. Nuclear deterrence is also much more stable than conventional deterrence, Consequently, if one were to wave a wand and rid the world of all nuclear weapons, we would likely see a wave of conventional arms races. Like it or not, nuclear weapons are a fact of life in the international political system, and will continue to be so until something more effective takes their place. The best we can hope for is the prevention of the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
I think we should all ponder this pearl of wisdom from NickViar:
“Non-state actors should be able to own and deploy nuclear weapons to balance the power of states. bin Laden had the same right to weapons that anybody else had and has.”
Yes indeed. The world would be safer if everyone had nuclear weapons including al Qaeda, the Unabomber and some guy holding his pajama trousers up in a mental institution.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think we should all ponder this pearl of wisdom from NickViar:
“Non-state actors should be able to own and deploy nuclear weapons to balance the power of states. bin Laden had the same right to weapons that anybody else had and has.”
Yes indeed. The world would be safer if everyone had nuclear weapons including al Qaeda, the Unabomber and some guy holding his pajama trousers up in a mental institution.[/quote]
Yes. His position on the subject is dangerously naive to say the least.
I know the Russians specifically toyed with a flu virus for a while. It’s been hypothesized that if some virus were diagnosed initially as a flu, and then turned out to have a lethal effect with a prolonged mid gestation period it could be several weeks before we figure out what hit us.
It wouldn’t take someone that devious. If it were me I’d put a virus in soap dispensers and sanitary wipes in places of mass transit. That would be quite horrible.
Yes, but biological weapons are extremely capital intensive to formulate and are exceptionally well guarded in most cases. The scenario you speak of is that of a non-state actor in a terrorist vs. state possession of nuclear weapons.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In Nick’s defense , he is consistent and epitomizes why some of the thinking behind the right is short sighted and non consistent [/quote]
In regards to international security, he is consistently naive. This isn’t a left or right issue, but a nearly universal norm of the international political system.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]
Tell that to Kim Jong Un.
[/quote]
Would you feel safer if he had a stockpile of ICBMs?
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]
Tell that to Kim Jong Un.
[/quote]
Would you feel safer if he had a stockpile of ICBMs?
[/quote]
I’d feel safer if we both did than if he did and we didn’t.
One could make a really good argument that nuclear weapons have done a wonderful job in their role. Their role is really one of deterrence. Think about how much more willing countries would be to go to war with each other if there wasn’t the threat of nukes. We don’t really mess around with Russia and the reason is simply because of nukes.
Nobody wants biological weapons for a number of reasons including containment.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
I would say that the Chiese are more accurately thought of as autocratic capitalists. China is also one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a de jute nuclear weapons state under the NPT, and a great power. The DPRK went nuclear to deter against regime change, and if Iran decides to actualize its breakout capacity, it will be for the same reason.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
One could make a really good argument that nuclear weapons have done a wonderful job in their role. Their role is really one of deterrence. Think about how much more willing countries would be to go to war with each other if there wasn’t the threat of nukes. We don’t really mess around with Russia and the reason is simply because of nukes.
Nobody wants biological weapons for a number of reasons including containment.
james[/quote]
Yes. Critics of nuclear deterrence also fail to understand the profound asymmetries that would exist in a world of conventional deterrence. In a world without nuclear weapons, conventional arms races are a likely result.
It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
[/quote]
Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?
[/quote]
I would say that the Chiese are more accurately thought of as autocratic capitalists. China is also one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a de jute nuclear weapons state under the NPT, and a great power. The DPRK went nuclear to deter against regime change, and if Iran decides to actualize its breakout capacity, it will be for the same reason. [/quote]
Although China has allowed some private enterprise since the end of the cultural revolution they are very far from laissez afire capitalism. The government owns all land, all the media and almost all of the banks.
No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]
This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.
Also, be more precise, kinda like:
USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”
NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”