EPTWhy states should have more nuclear weapons - Page 2
| Blogs > shArklight |
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 00:06 Saline wrote: A state run by religious fanatics is not one that acts rationally, and therefore this scenario instead puts everyone at risk of total annihilation, which is the worst possible outcome. I assume you're talking about Iran, but it's really not the case. I really don't think there's a non-rational actor in geopolitics now. Occasionally unpredictable, but not irrational. Part of the problem is that rationality calls for different requirements from each party, and it isn't always the best option. The US could've prevented the Cold War entirely and become a hegemony in 1951 had they decided to flatten the USSR before they completed their nuclear weapons, like the Joint Chiefs proposed. Truman's conscience won out, but from that perspective at that time, a preventative attack certainly was a rational option. | ||
|
oman573
United States14 Posts
- mostly because there are leaders of genocide part of the UN and that already is F'd up 2) Deterrence theory has been disproven by a couple authors. And in general having a corrupt country with nuclear weapons doesn't work. If we look at some of the countries in Africa the ones that have committed genocide to purify the race. Giving them nuclear weapons seems like a bad idea already. | ||
|
oman573
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 03 2012 00:06 thesideshow wrote: Are you saying this because you feel singapore will never survive a direct confrontation? That's what everybody here is taught :D | ||
|
GoSuChicken
Germany1726 Posts
| ||
|
shArklight
Singapore160 Posts
I think I was leaning too much on the 'rational actor' argument because North Korea was on my mind when I was thinking this through and as crazy as he seemed like he was, Kim Jong Il wouldn't have risked nuclear warfare with the South or the US. Even so, I do believe that the decisions that a state makes are not based on one man's whim or fancy, even dictators have advisors. I do recognize that I failed to see the transnational groups (terrorists if you will) argument. Honestly this completely slipped my mind despite the severity of the situation in our modern world. | ||
|
shArklight
Singapore160 Posts
Amen brother. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Watch Dr. Stranglelove: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Then you will see why MAD doesn't work. | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11945 Posts
First of all, not all nuclear weapons are of the same quality. Some nuclear weapons are better at penetrating an advanced anti-ballistic missile system than others. This means that if two given countries ever throw nukes at each other, the country that can't penetrate the other's defences will be the only one obliterated. And of course, there is a way to get around MAD; building a larger stockpile of weapons. This was seen in the nuclear arms race between the USSR and the US and less notably, between India and Pakistan. Cheers, if you think Singapore can't win in a conventional war, then you're wrong. Look at Vietnam for example ^^. | ||
|
CosmicHippo
United States547 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
The matter of the fact is no two nuclear armed nations have ever engaged in a direct armed conflict. Playing hypothetical "what-ifs" is of course of limited value, but I believe that without MAD the conflict between the US and USSR would have flared into full blown war. With the system of allies, it would have constituted WWIII, and millions likely would have died. The truth is geopolitical tensions are not going to go away anytime soon. While people are inherently irrational, the fact is the grave implications of total nuclear war are so terrible, that they have actually averted a number of wars. There's a reason why the Russian government is making so much noise over the US missle defense system; it has the theoretical ability to disrupt the detant that MAD has created. I'll admit that the idea of non-state actors getting a hold of a nuclear weapon is frightening; reality is that this is a low risk scenario. Liberating a warhead from an ICBM would be extremely difficult, and even if they had gotten a hold of highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium actually constructing a device is actually quite difficult. The more realistic scenario is terrorists creating a "dirty-bomb", but civilian nuclear power actually presents a greater threat of this happening than does military nuclear programs. On April 02 2012 23:16 DKR wrote: MAD was an awful idea. All it takes is one mad man to end the world. Some of the more outlandish tea partiers would quite happily nuke Iran for example. The only thing crazier than MAD was Reagans Star Wars. I think the world feels much safer without MAD. I know Europe does, Britons no longer live in fear of Russia destroying us, or the US prompting Russia to blow us up. Given Argentina attacked Falklands despite Trident, I think that's a bunch of crap as well. EDIT: You sir, are a nutter. Argentina did not have nuclear weapons though. The OP is talking about mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. And again, no two nuclear armed states have ever gone to war with each other. (after having both developed nuclear devices) On April 03 2012 00:01 Jibba wrote: Symmetric warfare doesn't really happen anymore, so what happened during the Cold War (and quite frankly, we were incredibly lucky to avoid it) isn't really relevant. Even if it did, MAD worked between the USSR and US because of second strike capability. If the US had decided to attack South Africa when they had nuclear weapons, they would've been done. MAD essentially relies on either submarines or allies (which is how to get into world wars), so it really only applies between the US, Russia and China. Without that, you're reliant on an overwhelming first strike which is a gambit no one wants to be involved in. The more modern nuclear crisis will be in a developing country (namely Pakistan) which has a healthy history of insurrection and is currently unstable. Pakistani leadership are smart enough not to do anything, but were there to be a coup, access to their weapons would be in jeopardy and you'd see the US or India act on it (or perhaps you wouldn't see it happen, but it'd happen.) And the reason for the panic? Because the collateral of nuclear conflict is enormous. Radiation aside, a nuclear winter would stunt agriculture around the world, most especially in East/Southeast Asia. I hope humanity has gotten past the Romans sowing salt into Carthage's earth because the long term effects of nuclear war are much greater than that, and nuclear weapons don't serve the same deterrence as they did before. You don't necessarily need submarines to enforce MAD. Most states now have radar capable of detecting ICBMs from a great distance, enabling the state under attack to launch bombers or deploy their own ICBMs in time. That's why Canada and the US still jointly operate NORAD and an entire array of artic radar stations. If Russia were to launch a nuclear strike, the US would know about it long before the bombs started to hit. I think you're right though about a Pakistani coup being a real threat. But I think the fear of nuclear fire consuming Islamabad might give pause even to right-wing religious zealots. I think a greater threat might be during the confusion that would ensue from a coup attempt, terrorists groups may be able to liberate radioactive material with which to construct a dirty bomb. But again, civilian nuclear programs pose a much greater threat to that potentiality. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 03 2012 00:38 Praetorial wrote: Hello. Watch Dr. Stranglelove: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Then you will see why MAD doesn't work. God I love that film. | ||
|
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On April 03 2012 00:18 Jibba wrote: I assume you're talking about Iran, but it's really not the case. I really don't think there's a non-rational actor in geopolitics now. Occasionally unpredictable, but not irrational. Part of the problem is that rationality calls for different requirements from each party, and it isn't always the best option. The US could've prevented the Cold War entirely and become a hegemony in 1951 had they decided to flatten the USSR before they completed their nuclear weapons, like the Joint Chiefs proposed. Truman's conscience won out, but from that perspective at that time, a preventative attack certainly was a rational option. Sorry but I would say every religious leader and every theocracy is irrational. If there is one country that will drop the bomb, it's one that believes it is doing their God's will. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
On April 03 2012 01:09 deathly rat wrote: Sorry but I would say every religious leader and every theocracy is irrational. If there is one country that will drop the bomb, it's one that believes it is doing their God's will. first of all, nations don`t throw bombs, people do. Religion may be a catalysator for certain things, but atheists also can be that kind of men, who value certain "believes" higher than the life of people. These people are the true danger. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9183 Posts
On April 02 2012 23:07 shArklight wrote: So here's the crazy part, in my opinion, every state should have the capacity to own nuclear weapons. This is based on the assumption that 1) a state would not attack another state for fear of destruction and 2) a state does not wish to be wiped out from the face of this Earth. Having nuclear weapons, despite raising the tension levels in the world exponentially, would deter every other state from attacking you. Here's the problem. The level of proliferation you advocate substantially increases chances of miscalculation, making nuclear war a more probable thing. It also makes every potential war, regardless of scale, a nuclear war, with cascading effects globally. Not to mention the fact that an increased nuclear arsenal globally, especially in unstable or rogue states, increases the chances that malicious non-state actors get their hands on nuclear material. Even realists during the Cold War began to realize the folly of ever-increasing nuclear arms production and proliferation amonst satellite states beginning in the 1960s. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
Then if WMD were proliferating, you<d get the problem that some states would still not have it and be at the mercy of others willing to use it. We dont need another Hiroshima. | ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
| ||
| ||
