3 ms·

Nuclear weapons are not banned because they are the deterrent. Ban on Chemical and biological weapons only works because no one wants to get nuked in response.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Ban on Chemical and biological weapons only work because no one wants to get nuked in response Chemical and biological weapons are uniquely messy and de-stabilising. Messy because it is difficult to limit the damage to targeted enemy combatants. (In World War I, the British mistakenly gassed themselves [1].) De-stabilising because once built, they are easy for unskilled actors to clandestinely transport and deploy. [1] https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/20041017045619/http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/20041017045619/http://www....
- vkou 9y ago
  Nuclear weapons are even messier - fallout does not respect national borders. They are, arguably, harder for unauthorized persons to clandestinely transport and deploy, but not necessarily in terms of damage/effort. Stealing poison gas shells from a WW1 army's stockpile, and setting them off in a city will kill hundreds of people. So will stealing regular explosive shells, and setting them off. For some reason, though, nobody's eager to outlaw bombs.
  - sigstoat 9y ago
    > So will stealing regular explosive shells, and setting them off. For some reason, though, nobody's eager to outlaw bombs. what's the difference between a bomb, and a big pile of demolition explosives?
    - vkou 9y ago
      There isn't one, and no treaty will stop some jerk from cooking up a batch of bathtub C4, and then taking it to a movie theater. My point is that claiming that arms limitation treaties counter the 'destabilizing' aspect of stolen/unauthorized use of chemical weapons is... Not true.
- bhhaskin 9y ago
  It is the same with Nuclear weapons. You can't control where the radiation is going to go. But again enforcement of the ban is only possible due to Nuclear weapons. A case in point is almost every first world country has stock piles of the stuff in case of a rainy day.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > It is the same with Nuclear weapons No, it’s not. Many weapons are messy. Many weapons are de-stabilising. Few are both. HEU is difficult to enrich, difficult to transport undetected and difficult to arrange into a working bomb.
- dooglius 9y ago
  > Messy because it is difficult to limit the damage to targeted enemy combatants. Unfortunately, this may not be true for much longer. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY for a scare.
Taniwha 9y ago
Nuclear weapons have not been banned in the past because the nuclear states hold veto power in the Security Council .... a result it's taken a long time to create a real ban The Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in '68, the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty only hit the General Assembly last year passed 122 to 1 (with the nuclear states and their cronies abstaining) and is still awaiting ratification

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Ban on Chemical and biological weapons only work because no one wants to get nuked in response Chemical and biological weapons are uniquely messy and de-stabilising. Messy because it is difficult to limit the damage to targeted enemy combatants. (In World War I, the British mistakenly gassed themselves [1].) De-stabilising because once built, they are easy for unskilled actors to clandestinely transport and deploy. [1] https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/20041017045619/http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/20041017045619/http://www....

vkou 9y ago
Nuclear weapons are even messier - fallout does not respect national borders. They are, arguably, harder for unauthorized persons to clandestinely transport and deploy, but not necessarily in terms of damage/effort. Stealing poison gas shells from a WW1 army's stockpile, and setting them off in a city will kill hundreds of people. So will stealing regular explosive shells, and setting them off. For some reason, though, nobody's eager to outlaw bombs.
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > So will stealing regular explosive shells, and setting them off. For some reason, though, nobody's eager to outlaw bombs. what's the difference between a bomb, and a big pile of demolition explosives?
  - vkou 9y ago
    There isn't one, and no treaty will stop some jerk from cooking up a batch of bathtub C4, and then taking it to a movie theater. My point is that claiming that arms limitation treaties counter the 'destabilizing' aspect of stolen/unauthorized use of chemical weapons is... Not true.
bhhaskin 9y ago
It is the same with Nuclear weapons. You can't control where the radiation is going to go. But again enforcement of the ban is only possible due to Nuclear weapons. A case in point is almost every first world country has stock piles of the stuff in case of a rainy day.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > It is the same with Nuclear weapons No, it’s not. Many weapons are messy. Many weapons are de-stabilising. Few are both. HEU is difficult to enrich, difficult to transport undetected and difficult to arrange into a working bomb.
dooglius 9y ago
> Messy because it is difficult to limit the damage to targeted enemy combatants. Unfortunately, this may not be true for much longer. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY for a scare.

Taniwha 9y ago

Nuclear weapons have not been banned in the past because the nuclear states hold veto power in the Security Council .... a result it's taken a long time to create a real ban The Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in '68, the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty only hit the General Assembly last year passed 122 to 1 (with the nuclear states and their cronies abstaining) and is still awaiting ratification