3 ms·

South Africa did disarm.

• gh02t 9y ago
  Yeah they did, but under different circumstances. Arguably South Africa never had any intention of keeping their weapons and intended them as a bargaining chip. South Africa never really had a significant arsenal either. This talk was about total global disarmament, which is a different scenario. Moreover, he was interested in disarmament schemes that maintained the balance of power that deters the actual use of weapons, ideally right up to the moment that there are none.
  • justin66 9y ago
    Did the analysis include a buildup of defensive weapons? There was a school of thought that building up that stuff was a necessary prerequisite for eliminating nuclear weapons and I think it was because it ameliorated the risks involved with the "leap of faith." (and replaced it with risks of its own)
    • gh02t 9y ago
      Not exactly. The whole idea was predicated on the obsolescence of nuclear weapons in modern conflicts, so in a sense it was partially predicated on improving non-nuclear defensive capabilities. His suggested "pitch" to countries to get them started was the massive cost of maintaining weapons that are not intended to actually be used- they just sit around and act menacing. He posited that this was a pretty juicy incentive and if you could conceive a scheme where countries could all disarm simultaneously while maintaining a balance of power (and thus the disincentive against the use of weapons) that it might actually work. This is obvious of course and pretty standard thought. His real focus was on the importance of ways for the weapons states to mutually verify the disarmament of the other states in a technically rigorous manner but all of it was interesting.