7 ms·

This is why nuclear non-proliferation is important. Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. Each new nuclear state magnifies

by rrggrr 9y ago

This is why nuclear non-proliferation is important. Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. Each new nuclear state magnifies the risks, and all the more so because they lack the after action experience that a half century of mishaps delivers.

vkou 9y ago
Arms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible state of affairs.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  What's the realistic approach to this though? I don't know anything about this area, but to me it seems like hoping for 20 countries having 50 each would be effectively the same as hoping for 20 countries having 0 each. That is to say, we're in the arms race because each country did have N each. But then one country had N+1, and so the others raced for N+2, and so on. If we hoped for 50 each, wouldn't it drop back to the same pattern, and someone would become 50+1? Note that 4,000 of course doesn't solve the N+1 issue, but my point is if you're going to aim for 50 - I'm not sure what problems it solves. May as well shoot for 0, no? 0 seems equally impossible to me as 50, but at least it solves a single problem.. nukes, in general.
  - raquo 9y ago
    You can't just un-invent nukes. They're there, they provide nuclear deterrence. They will continue to exist no matter how many countries "agree" to stop using them. Regardless of whether you have them, there is always a chance that someone might still keep the nukes in secret despite what they agreed to. No one would want such a risk if they have an option to avoid it.
    - notheguyouthink 9y ago
      Oh I agree completely, but that's sort of my point. The OP's solution seemed to be making everyone have 50 instead of 4,000. That seemed both impossible, and a weird goal. If you're going to try for the impossible, shouldn't we aim for 0? I don't ever see us stopping N+1 nukes though.
- ars 9y ago
  > I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. I absolutely would not. Those 2 countries know far more about the process then those other countries, and they have the budget to do it right. You would have to duplicate labs, and computers, and other efforts 20 times in your scenario, and each of those labs will not be as good as the 2 higher funded ones. > A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. Look at it from a fear point of view: No one will detonate a thousand weapons unless they are declaring total war. So all one needs to do is read global moods and see if total war is likely (it's not). (i.e. war might happen, but not total war) An accident on the other hand can happen randomly, you would be permanently and constantly worried about one.
  - taurath 9y ago
    Major conflicts only happen in non nuclear states. In all honesty I’ll bet that’s what has kept India and Pakistan from a war.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      How do you define a major conflict? Iraq seemed pretty big, and so did Afghanistan.
      - a_t48 9y ago
        The draft wasn't invoked, so there's that.
      - aidenn0 9y ago
        Those didn't happen in nuclear states.
        lostlogin 9y ago
        China has had several major border skirmishes with India, some with Russia and with Taiwan and I’m sure there are others too. Israel has had lots. Russia has had some ugly episodes too.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  >I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. Now instead of two political leaders to worry about, you have 20. Not sure if that's what you really want.
  - nrb 9y ago
    Political leaders are far from the biggest worry compared to command and control of their vast nuclear arsenals. More eyes on less weapons mitigates that. After all, several nuclear weapons have gone missing by the US and several dozen are believed to have gone missing in the Soviet Union.
- nawgszy 9y ago
  I don't really think that we believe either of those things; it seems a lot has been written on how MAD is a rather poor sentiment to rest our future upon. But all that aside, 20 countries each having 50 warheads seems a lot likelier to end up with 20 countries each having thousands of warheads than 2 countries having thousands of warheads and everyone else none does, no?
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  Wouldn't you rather live in a world where all governments had zero nuclear weapons each? A nuclear bomb serves no other purpose than killing huge numbers of civilians in a short period of time. Shouldn't we strive for a world where nobody has that capability? Not to mention that in the United States, one man has unilateral and final authority to launch a nuclear first strike. Edit: countries -> governments
  - jtmarmon 9y ago
    Yes, I would. Please sign me up when you figure out how to do this
  - mantas 9y ago
    The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. If all countries claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them?
    - vkou 9y ago
      > The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. Why is a handful of countries having nuclear bombs the best way to ensure that? Why not two dozen countries having nuclear bombs? Neither Ukraine nor Iraq would have been invaded if they were nuclear-armed. It's incredibly self-serving of nuclear powers to claim that they can have these weapons, because they will be responsible with them, but nobody else can. (And then they go ahead and start wars.)
      - mantas 9y ago
        I don't see much difference between handful and a dozen or two. Or maybe my English as second language is failing me.. It'd be definitely interesting to see Ukraine and Iraq conflicts unfold while they had nuclear weapons. I'd be all for giving nuclear weapons to every single country if that'd stop wars in the future. But I'm afraid some asshats would start blackmailing others and those would bend over. And we'd be back at square 1.
joshlegs 9y ago
I don't disagree that nuclear non-proliferation is important. But I think the arguments you're using are kind of a bit of false logic. Essentially your argument boils down to "this thing X is hard to do safely. Therefore only people who have done X should do it [because they've failed a lot of times before]." And I don't think that is a legitimate argument for any topic, really.
- keiferski 9y ago
  This is completely a valid argument when the "learning mistakes" of X have disastrous consequences.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
iaw 9y ago
Of the broken arrow incidents I'm aware of this was one of the least dangerous in terms of detonation threat. > Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. There has never been an accidental detonation of a nuclear device. The problem this article describes was one in rocketry, insulation, and adherence to protocols. Nuclear non-proliferation is important, but this article is not the reason why. The reason non-proliferation is important is because of the ramifications of using the devices, not challenges in storing them.
- 7952 9y ago
  But these devices always exist as one part of a wider technical and human system. It seems unwise to separate the two when safety could be comprised by a failure in any part of the system.
  - hydrox24 9y ago
    Perhaps I am ignorant and don't know it, but the USSR collapsed, its nuclear arsenal was split, and nothing awful happened. Even during one of the most spectacular system-wide failures in modern history, a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons was largely kept safe and in tact.
    - 7952 9y ago
      Maybe we just got lucky? I don't think 60 years of history is enough to draw conclusions about the systematic safety of nuclear weapons. Especially when so many facts are unavoidably restricted. It is easy to become prone to a sort of survivorship bias. But nuclear proliferation guarantees that we will have more and more opportunities to test that safety. It only needs to fail once to be catastrophic at which point your argument would seem a little flawed.

by rrggrr 9y ago

vkou 9y ago

Arms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible state of affairs.

notheguyouthink 9y ago
What's the realistic approach to this though? I don't know anything about this area, but to me it seems like hoping for 20 countries having 50 each would be effectively the same as hoping for 20 countries having 0 each. That is to say, we're in the arms race because each country did have N each. But then one country had N+1, and so the others raced for N+2, and so on. If we hoped for 50 each, wouldn't it drop back to the same pattern, and someone would become 50+1? Note that 4,000 of course doesn't solve the N+1 issue, but my point is if you're going to aim for 50 - I'm not sure what problems it solves. May as well shoot for 0, no? 0 seems equally impossible to me as 50, but at least it solves a single problem.. nukes, in general.
- raquo 9y ago
  You can't just un-invent nukes. They're there, they provide nuclear deterrence. They will continue to exist no matter how many countries "agree" to stop using them. Regardless of whether you have them, there is always a chance that someone might still keep the nukes in secret despite what they agreed to. No one would want such a risk if they have an option to avoid it.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    Oh I agree completely, but that's sort of my point. The OP's solution seemed to be making everyone have 50 instead of 4,000. That seemed both impossible, and a weird goal. If you're going to try for the impossible, shouldn't we aim for 0? I don't ever see us stopping N+1 nukes though.
ars 9y ago
> I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. I absolutely would not. Those 2 countries know far more about the process then those other countries, and they have the budget to do it right. You would have to duplicate labs, and computers, and other efforts 20 times in your scenario, and each of those labs will not be as good as the 2 higher funded ones. > A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. Look at it from a fear point of view: No one will detonate a thousand weapons unless they are declaring total war. So all one needs to do is read global moods and see if total war is likely (it's not). (i.e. war might happen, but not total war) An accident on the other hand can happen randomly, you would be permanently and constantly worried about one.
- taurath 9y ago
  Major conflicts only happen in non nuclear states. In all honesty I’ll bet that’s what has kept India and Pakistan from a war.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    How do you define a major conflict? Iraq seemed pretty big, and so did Afghanistan.
    - a_t48 9y ago
      The draft wasn't invoked, so there's that.
    - aidenn0 9y ago
      Those didn't happen in nuclear states.
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        China has had several major border skirmishes with India, some with Russia and with Taiwan and I’m sure there are others too. Israel has had lots. Russia has had some ugly episodes too.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
>I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. Now instead of two political leaders to worry about, you have 20. Not sure if that's what you really want.
- nrb 9y ago
  Political leaders are far from the biggest worry compared to command and control of their vast nuclear arsenals. More eyes on less weapons mitigates that. After all, several nuclear weapons have gone missing by the US and several dozen are believed to have gone missing in the Soviet Union.
nawgszy 9y ago
I don't really think that we believe either of those things; it seems a lot has been written on how MAD is a rather poor sentiment to rest our future upon. But all that aside, 20 countries each having 50 warheads seems a lot likelier to end up with 20 countries each having thousands of warheads than 2 countries having thousands of warheads and everyone else none does, no?
clarkmoody 9y ago
Wouldn't you rather live in a world where all governments had zero nuclear weapons each? A nuclear bomb serves no other purpose than killing huge numbers of civilians in a short period of time. Shouldn't we strive for a world where nobody has that capability? Not to mention that in the United States, one man has unilateral and final authority to launch a nuclear first strike. Edit: countries -> governments
- jtmarmon 9y ago
  Yes, I would. Please sign me up when you figure out how to do this
- mantas 9y ago
  The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. If all countries claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them?
  - vkou 9y ago
    > The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. Why is a handful of countries having nuclear bombs the best way to ensure that? Why not two dozen countries having nuclear bombs? Neither Ukraine nor Iraq would have been invaded if they were nuclear-armed. It's incredibly self-serving of nuclear powers to claim that they can have these weapons, because they will be responsible with them, but nobody else can. (And then they go ahead and start wars.)
    - mantas 9y ago
      I don't see much difference between handful and a dozen or two. Or maybe my English as second language is failing me.. It'd be definitely interesting to see Ukraine and Iraq conflicts unfold while they had nuclear weapons. I'd be all for giving nuclear weapons to every single country if that'd stop wars in the future. But I'm afraid some asshats would start blackmailing others and those would bend over. And we'd be back at square 1.

joshlegs 9y ago

I don't disagree that nuclear non-proliferation is important. But I think the arguments you're using are kind of a bit of false logic. Essentially your argument boils down to "this thing X is hard to do safely. Therefore only people who have done X should do it [because they've failed a lot of times before]." And I don't think that is a legitimate argument for any topic, really.

keiferski 9y ago
This is completely a valid argument when the "learning mistakes" of X have disastrous consequences.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

iaw 9y ago

Of the broken arrow incidents I'm aware of this was one of the least dangerous in terms of detonation threat. > Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. There has never been an accidental detonation of a nuclear device. The problem this article describes was one in rocketry, insulation, and adherence to protocols. Nuclear non-proliferation is important, but this article is not the reason why. The reason non-proliferation is important is because of the ramifications of using the devices, not challenges in storing them.

7952 9y ago
But these devices always exist as one part of a wider technical and human system. It seems unwise to separate the two when safety could be comprised by a failure in any part of the system.
- hydrox24 9y ago
  Perhaps I am ignorant and don't know it, but the USSR collapsed, its nuclear arsenal was split, and nothing awful happened. Even during one of the most spectacular system-wide failures in modern history, a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons was largely kept safe and in tact.
  - 7952 9y ago
    Maybe we just got lucky? I don't think 60 years of history is enough to draw conclusions about the systematic safety of nuclear weapons. Especially when so many facts are unavoidably restricted. It is easy to become prone to a sort of survivorship bias. But nuclear proliferation guarantees that we will have more and more opportunities to test that safety. It only needs to fail once to be catastrophic at which point your argument would seem a little flawed.