4 ms·

I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear w

I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated. The logic of nuclear deterrence still holds, and in fact deterrence should be stronger since your opponents know you have absolutely no other choices.

toyg 10y ago
Your logic assumes the military is only required for defensive purposes, which is not the case.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  That's the point - remove temptation from your own politicians. That is for those who believe in a "military is for defense" doctrine. Myself, I'm not so sure the evidence for interventions abroad would support an offensive military - narrow interest groups who clearly have benefited a lot excepted.
  - toyg 10y ago
    As much as I want to agree with the overall sentiment, when one talks about defense one inevitably ends up defining a spectrum of activity beyond "protecting the Motherland from invasion". Protecting South-China Sea trade routes, is that not defending your own economy? Peacekeeping in neighboring countries like NATO did in the Balkans, is that not defending your own security and borders? But you couldn't do it with nukes or some proxy rebel army. Adventurism is bad, but even the most peaceful of strategies sooner or later will run into a situation where a non-nuclear big stick is the lesser evil. As much as I loathe post-9/11 US foreign policy (and a lot of pre-9/11 as well, to be honest), I wouldn't want the US to lose much of their military capability at this point in time. I'd rather live with a conventional military and no nukes than the opposite scenario.
ajuc 10y ago
> disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. Then a country with conventional army and nukes would be able to attack you without using nukes and threat nuclear retaliation if you use nukes. It's rational to choose occupation over nuclear apocalypse, so you surrender (or he expects you to).
- sevenless 10y ago
  Why would any country attack you if you make it clear that an attack will result in them being annihilated? Politicians start wars when they believe the risk is worth it; they are much less likely to order troops to invade if they think it will result in them, personally, being vaporized in 15 minutes.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    Because they don't believe you'll actually do it over some small matter (say, a proxy takeover in a minor ally power), so they call your bluff. It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.
    - sevenless 10y ago
      > a proxy takeover in a minor ally power That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers. I agree that a large conventional military is indispensible if you want to go the imperialist route. However, that raises the question of whether imposing your will on the entire world is legitimate. I would advocate that it is not, that it makes the world a worse place. In a world without strong international laws, if you want to safeguard other nations from attack and promote peace, sell them nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is hard to argue with, and safeguards the weak from the strong. For example, had Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would have been deterred from invasion and the world would likely be a more peaceful place today.
piaste 10y ago
Ah, but you always have another choice. You can always surrender. Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland. But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"? It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. A murderer will know you'll take him down with you, but a robber can safely assume you will give up your wallet rather than blow yourself up. (Unless he fears you might be completely insane - hence Nixon's "madman theory".) There's a fantastic clip from Yes, Minister about this very scenario - I'll see if I can find it and link it later.
- sevenless 10y ago
  > Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war The thing is that there is no reason to believe that a nuclear exchange is necessarily the same as national suicide or will escalate to a global nuclear conflagration. The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down. What nuclear weapons do is vastly increase the risk and cost of starting a war. This is good, as wars start when politicians believe the cost is worth the benefits. Waltz says: "Nuclear weapons in the hands of six or seven states have lessened wars and limited conflicts. The further spread of nuclear weapons can be expected to widen those effects. Should the United States then promote the spread of nuclear weapons for the sake of peace, even though we need not for the sake of stability? To do so would replace one extreme policy with another. Present policy works hard to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. My examination of the effects of nuclear weapons leads to the conclusion that our policy is wrong without supporting the proposition that true proliferation—the rapid spread of nuclear weaponry—is desirable. Rapid change may be destabilizing. The slow spread of nuclear weapons gives states time to learn to live with them, to appreciate their virtues, and to understand the limits they place on behaviour." > But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? The solution, as per Ken Waltz, is to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your remote ally should also have them! > What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? This would be generally considered an act of war (what the US did to Japan pre-WW2, actually; and Nixon considered an oil embargo from the Saudis equivalent to an act of war). The critical thing is to make it clear where you are drawing the lines. > Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"? The United States should not start any kind of war over what happens in Berlin. But German people themselves should certainly have nuclear deterrence. > It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. It is a lot more like carrying a gun for personal defence. In human societies we have the rule of law to defend us, but in international relations it's still 'might makes right', and being willing to kill is a key part of that. Now, if you are a mugger, would you be more willing to attack someone who is willing to use a gun and has no other alternative, or to attack someone who is very reluctant to use a gun and will give up their wallet if pressed? Exactly.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. That only makes sense if you believe "effective" for a deterrent is a binary trait that isn't sensitive to context. But even those who believe nuclear deterrence is effective only believe it is very (but not, for any of them, perfectly) effective against a particular range of threats, and less effective (ranging down to completely ineffective) at deterring other things that application of conventional force might be useful for.

toyg 10y ago

Your logic assumes the military is only required for defensive purposes, which is not the case.

Noseshine 10y ago
That's the point - remove temptation from your own politicians. That is for those who believe in a "military is for defense" doctrine. Myself, I'm not so sure the evidence for interventions abroad would support an offensive military - narrow interest groups who clearly have benefited a lot excepted.
- toyg 10y ago
  As much as I want to agree with the overall sentiment, when one talks about defense one inevitably ends up defining a spectrum of activity beyond "protecting the Motherland from invasion". Protecting South-China Sea trade routes, is that not defending your own economy? Peacekeeping in neighboring countries like NATO did in the Balkans, is that not defending your own security and borders? But you couldn't do it with nukes or some proxy rebel army. Adventurism is bad, but even the most peaceful of strategies sooner or later will run into a situation where a non-nuclear big stick is the lesser evil. As much as I loathe post-9/11 US foreign policy (and a lot of pre-9/11 as well, to be honest), I wouldn't want the US to lose much of their military capability at this point in time. I'd rather live with a conventional military and no nukes than the opposite scenario.

ajuc 10y ago

> disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. Then a country with conventional army and nukes would be able to attack you without using nukes and threat nuclear retaliation if you use nukes. It's rational to choose occupation over nuclear apocalypse, so you surrender (or he expects you to).

sevenless 10y ago
Why would any country attack you if you make it clear that an attack will result in them being annihilated? Politicians start wars when they believe the risk is worth it; they are much less likely to order troops to invade if they think it will result in them, personally, being vaporized in 15 minutes.
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  Because they don't believe you'll actually do it over some small matter (say, a proxy takeover in a minor ally power), so they call your bluff. It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    > a proxy takeover in a minor ally power That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers. I agree that a large conventional military is indispensible if you want to go the imperialist route. However, that raises the question of whether imposing your will on the entire world is legitimate. I would advocate that it is not, that it makes the world a worse place. In a world without strong international laws, if you want to safeguard other nations from attack and promote peace, sell them nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is hard to argue with, and safeguards the weak from the strong. For example, had Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would have been deterred from invasion and the world would likely be a more peaceful place today.

piaste 10y ago

Ah, but you always have another choice. You can always surrender. Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland. But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"? It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. A murderer will know you'll take him down with you, but a robber can safely assume you will give up your wallet rather than blow yourself up. (Unless he fears you might be completely insane - hence Nixon's "madman theory".) There's a fantastic clip from Yes, Minister about this very scenario - I'll see if I can find it and link it later.

sevenless 10y ago
> Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war The thing is that there is no reason to believe that a nuclear exchange is necessarily the same as national suicide or will escalate to a global nuclear conflagration. The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down. What nuclear weapons do is vastly increase the risk and cost of starting a war. This is good, as wars start when politicians believe the cost is worth the benefits. Waltz says: "Nuclear weapons in the hands of six or seven states have lessened wars and limited conflicts. The further spread of nuclear weapons can be expected to widen those effects. Should the United States then promote the spread of nuclear weapons for the sake of peace, even though we need not for the sake of stability? To do so would replace one extreme policy with another. Present policy works hard to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. My examination of the effects of nuclear weapons leads to the conclusion that our policy is wrong without supporting the proposition that true proliferation—the rapid spread of nuclear weaponry—is desirable. Rapid change may be destabilizing. The slow spread of nuclear weapons gives states time to learn to live with them, to appreciate their virtues, and to understand the limits they place on behaviour." > But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? The solution, as per Ken Waltz, is to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your remote ally should also have them! > What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? This would be generally considered an act of war (what the US did to Japan pre-WW2, actually; and Nixon considered an oil embargo from the Saudis equivalent to an act of war). The critical thing is to make it clear where you are drawing the lines. > Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"? The United States should not start any kind of war over what happens in Berlin. But German people themselves should certainly have nuclear deterrence. > It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. It is a lot more like carrying a gun for personal defence. In human societies we have the rule of law to defend us, but in international relations it's still 'might makes right', and being willing to kill is a key part of that. Now, if you are a mugger, would you be more willing to attack someone who is willing to use a gun and has no other alternative, or to attack someone who is very reluctant to use a gun and will give up their wallet if pressed? Exactly.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. That only makes sense if you believe "effective" for a deterrent is a binary trait that isn't sensitive to context. But even those who believe nuclear deterrence is effective only believe it is very (but not, for any of them, perfectly) effective against a particular range of threats, and less effective (ranging down to completely ineffective) at deterring other things that application of conventional force might be useful for.