7 ms·

Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to

by rrggrr 11y ago

Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to a peaceful nuclear program ought not to be absolute when a single failure to keep its materials and people secure can mean disaster for many other nations.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to a peaceful nuclear program ought not to be absolute when a single failure to keep its materials and people secure can mean disaster for many other nations. "U.S. Air Force relieves nine officers following nuclear test cheating probe" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-air-force-fires-nine-officers-following-nuclear-test-cheating-probe/2014/03/27/9e5eaffa-b5e0-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ai... "In Error, B-52 Flew Over U.S. With Nuclear-Armed Missiles" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090500762.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n... "Bill Clinton 'lost vital White House nuclear codes" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8077326/Bill-Clinton-lost-vital-White-House-nuclear-codes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8... "Wikipedia: US Military Nuclear Weapons Incidents" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... So when do we (I'm a US citizen) hand in our nuclear card? No nation state has any business having weaponized nuclear materials (or infrastructure to weaponize non-weapons grade material) in their possession.
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  Yes but some are more stable.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    The US invaded a country on the pretense it had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that did not exist. That is not what I consider "stable", as least from a military and foreign policy perspective. The US Pentagon and US CIA are now fighting a proxy war, inadvertently, against each other based on the factions they're providing support for in Syria: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/america-is-now-fighting-a-proxy-war-with-itself-in-syria#.cd73jx2MM http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/america-is-now-fighting-a...
- roywiggins 11y ago
  > No nation state has any business having nuclear materials in their possession. Not even for medical imaging, radiotherapy, and so on?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Clarified my post you quoted.
- foobarian 11y ago
  Let's not also forget http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...
tptacek 11y ago
All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort. But, so what? Unless you're willing to invade, Iran has to agree with that consensus for it to have any impact.
- qrendel 11y ago
  > All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort. Not that I agree, but there was at least an argument for a nuclear Iran made in Foreign Affairs about three years ago (July 2012 issue). Though the situation has obviously changed since then, e.g. ISIS and the Iranian nuclear deal. tl;dr: The Iranian government isn't as irrationally belligerent as the Western media and foreign policy establishment make them out to be, and that it would bring stability to the only remaining region with a single, unopposed nuclear power (Israel). http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf (pdf copy linked because the article is paywalled on the FA site)
- jballanc 11y ago
  Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one). "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense, and that if these states would just turn over their materials and toe the line, they have nothing to worry about... ...except that Iraq did, and they were invaded. Libya did, and their leader was overthrown. Iran didn't, and they eventually got a negotiated settlement that left them with some nuclear capabilities. North Korea thumbed their nose at "us", developed and tested a bomb, and "we" sent them shipments of food and fuel in return. Soooo...maybe not such a crazy motivation after all? I realize each case is unique (Gaddafi's fall wasn't directly linked to his compliance; Iran has numerous proxies operating on its behalf in the region; nobody wants a hungry, angry North Korea attempting any sort of military action, nuclear or no), but at least in the case of Iraq, "we" really screwed the pooch. It's going to be at least a few more decades of good behavior before "we" can talk, again, about "minimizing nuclear states" and expect any non-nuclear states to take such talk seriously.

by rrggrr 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to a peaceful nuclear program ought not to be absolute when a single failure to keep its materials and people secure can mean disaster for many other nations. "U.S. Air Force relieves nine officers following nuclear test cheating probe" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-air-force-fires-nine-officers-following-nuclear-test-cheating-probe/2014/03/27/9e5eaffa-b5e0-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ai... "In Error, B-52 Flew Over U.S. With Nuclear-Armed Missiles" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090500762.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n... "Bill Clinton 'lost vital White House nuclear codes" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8077326/Bill-Clinton-lost-vital-White-House-nuclear-codes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8... "Wikipedia: US Military Nuclear Weapons Incidents" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... So when do we (I'm a US citizen) hand in our nuclear card? No nation state has any business having weaponized nuclear materials (or infrastructure to weaponize non-weapons grade material) in their possession.

vmorgulis 11y ago
Yes but some are more stable.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  The US invaded a country on the pretense it had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that did not exist. That is not what I consider "stable", as least from a military and foreign policy perspective. The US Pentagon and US CIA are now fighting a proxy war, inadvertently, against each other based on the factions they're providing support for in Syria: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/america-is-now-fighting-a-proxy-war-with-itself-in-syria#.cd73jx2MM http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/america-is-now-fighting-a...
roywiggins 11y ago
> No nation state has any business having nuclear materials in their possession. Not even for medical imaging, radiotherapy, and so on?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Clarified my post you quoted.
foobarian 11y ago
Let's not also forget http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...

tptacek 11y ago

All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort. But, so what? Unless you're willing to invade, Iran has to agree with that consensus for it to have any impact.

qrendel 11y ago
> All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort. Not that I agree, but there was at least an argument for a nuclear Iran made in Foreign Affairs about three years ago (July 2012 issue). Though the situation has obviously changed since then, e.g. ISIS and the Iranian nuclear deal. tl;dr: The Iranian government isn't as irrationally belligerent as the Western media and foreign policy establishment make them out to be, and that it would bring stability to the only remaining region with a single, unopposed nuclear power (Israel). http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf (pdf copy linked because the article is paywalled on the FA site)
jballanc 11y ago
Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one). "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense, and that if these states would just turn over their materials and toe the line, they have nothing to worry about... ...except that Iraq did, and they were invaded. Libya did, and their leader was overthrown. Iran didn't, and they eventually got a negotiated settlement that left them with some nuclear capabilities. North Korea thumbed their nose at "us", developed and tested a bomb, and "we" sent them shipments of food and fuel in return. Soooo...maybe not such a crazy motivation after all? I realize each case is unique (Gaddafi's fall wasn't directly linked to his compliance; Iran has numerous proxies operating on its behalf in the region; nobody wants a hungry, angry North Korea attempting any sort of military action, nuclear or no), but at least in the case of Iraq, "we" really screwed the pooch. It's going to be at least a few more decades of good behavior before "we" can talk, again, about "minimizing nuclear states" and expect any non-nuclear states to take such talk seriously.