15 ms·

There are over 100 nuclear reactors in the USA. A significant number of these ARE used for nuclear warhead production. Different rules for us and for our enemi

There are over 100 nuclear reactors in the USA. A significant number of these ARE used for nuclear warhead production. Different rules for us and for our enemies of the moment.... Geopolitics is so much fun.

madez 9y ago
Rest assured that there are others who think that the nuclear weapons of the USA are equally indefensible. We must bannish them globally.
- soperj 9y ago
  Absolutely. There's the possibility that other countries could use Nukes on human populations. The USA already has.
- dahdum 9y ago
  There is a reasonable school of thought that banning them would increase the amount of warfare in the world, by drastically reducing the risk and scope of retaliation. As it stands, they make the cost of war too high between major powers. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps that it is worth the cost in lives from smaller wars to prevent mass casualties in nuclear ones?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What’s worse, repeated cycles of conventional conflicts between major powers, or peace between major powers with a ~1% chance per year of total annihilation? (Adjust the percentage as you see fit. I think that’s a reasonable guess but it’s definitely a guess.) I think the second one is clearly worse. The idea that nuclear weapons are good because they’ve resulted in peace only makes sense if you think the chances of a nuclear world war are negligible. I don’t think that’s true but some people seem to.
  - madez 9y ago
    I don't have an opinion on how having nukes saves lives, but in either case I think there is a better solution. An international, democratically legitimized world council that has the competence to bind nations governments and override their decisions. Akin to the EU, but globally. That is an alternative, successful way to keep peace. The security council of the UN is not up to the task because of many obvious shortcomings. But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      That world council has to get buy-in from every nation, either voluntarily or not. Voluntary won't happen. And the "non-voluntary" part means, essentially, going to war to keep the peace. > But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing. Compared to being ruled by something akin to the UN? (Not the security council, the full UN.) Absolutely, my nation is a good thing compared to that. Compared to being ruled by the EU? Maybe even compared to that. (And you wouldn't get something as good as the EU, for the same reasons that the UN wasn't as good as the EU.) Now, true, not every nation can say that. And we weren't talking about affairs within the nation, but affairs between nations. Still... I'd say that assuming the nation is a bad thing "assumes facts not in evidence", as they say in court.
    - dahdum 9y ago
      The world is currently moving away from democracy, so the ideal of a democratic world council may not be possible for generations, if ever. I agree it would be the best way to prevent war, but a slide into autocracy there could hamstring humanity for centuries. Even without autocracy, global views are already anti-LGBT, and otherwise do not reflect the progressive values of western democracies.
    - basementcat 9y ago
      Even with the single world government, there will still be factional violence. Ethnic tensions and tribalism won't magically go away. People who believe that their voices haven't been heard still violently riot in even the most democratic of nations.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    Then let's give nukes to every country and we will live in peace and happiness forever.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I agree with that. If you think of geopolitics in terms of game theory, we've reached a relatively stable equilibria between the "big" countries (which of course still fight indirectly via proxy wars, including to this day in Yemen/Syria) due to MAD. On any regular timescale it's just so much more beneficial for every party to individually refrain from using nukes against each other, considering how much to lose there is in a retaliation. Plus, actually getting rid of all the nukes would make warfare more attractive, which makes acquiring nukes desirable again. And no nation under threat of total war would rather lose everything than use nuclear weapons. So I don't think the equilibrium of nobody having nukes is at all stable: eventually one country begins to think about warfare, decides they need nukes, creating a power imbalance, causing others to get nukes too. Though of course the flaw of MAD, or even game theory in general, is that it assumes everybody will be a rational actor. People are people, and if someone stupidly violated MAD against their own self-interest or reasoning on some bizarre hundreds/thousands of years timescale, we could all perish. There is a small but nonzero probability on every single day of our lives that we and everything we know will be destroyed by nuclear weapons. So far that day hasn't come yet, and there's no way of knowing how likely it is. But given that banning nukes on an international scale seems unstable anyway, I guess this is the best we can do.
    - danbruc 9y ago
      Assume North Korea has on the order of ten or so nuclear weapons and one day Kim Jong-un goes nuts and launches them all towards the USA. Some are stopped by missile defense systems but a few make it through, hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of victims. What now? Do you really turn North Korea into a sheet of glass because you always threatened mutual destruction? The people of North Korea had mostly nothing to do with what just happend, the responsible people may be hiding in nuclear bunkers. There are also no more nukes posing a further thread. Do you really kill millions of innocent people out of revenge?
      - nokcha 9y ago
        Are you suggesting that nobody in North Korea with the power to stop the launch of a nuclear attack would be severely adversely affected by nuclear retaliation that reduces North Korea to rubble? I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. In fact, I think MAD is one of very few things that could provoke a mutiny against Kim Jong-Un.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  My argument against nuclear power for emerging countries is that, they will repeat the mistakes US (and maybe EU) did before. And old nuclear powers already started dismantling their arsenal (officially at least). It's not a fairness issue.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  That's vanishingly unlikely to happen. Nice thought though. I think there is little argument that North Korea is worse by many metrics than the US. Not that the US doesn't have it's own share of sins, it does, but at least it doesn't have dynastic dictatorships and provides some measure of freedom for their citizens. Then again, I live in the US. While there are some things I'd like to see changed in my country, NK having improved military power is definitely not in my interest. Nor is it in the interest of most of the world IMOP. I was not in support of almost any military adventures (or CIA adventures) of the last 20+ years my country has undertaken, very ashamed, wish it had not happened, voted against, protested against, did not support, it happened anyway. But I would support action against the North Korean regime if it came to it. They truly are dangerous to a world order that somewhat works for millions of people.
Koshkin 9y ago
Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Different rules for us and for our enemies of the moment I don't want to be reductive, but isn't this obvious? While I'd rather there were no nuclear weapons, there are some regimes that I trust more than others to have some technologies. Is it unreasonable to think that?
- matuszeg 9y ago
  I think everyone thinks that. We just cannot all agree on who to trust and since we cannot agree it turns into an argument over who gets to make the decision of who can or cannot have them. Which will never end.
- danbruc 9y ago
  You have to change your point of view, from the North Korean point of view it is obviously better if they have the nukes because they don't trust the USA. If you think it would be okay for the USA to blow up a North Korean reactor to prevent them from producing more Plutonium then it would be equally legitimate for North Korea to blow up US nuclear facilities. It is not impossible to justify applying different rules to different countries but you have to be careful to not simply assume you are right or better or stronger.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Like it or not the US has at least the capacity to handle nukes with responsibility and to produce “safe” nukes. It’s also has a well defined and stable chain of command and government. The reason the world shakes when India and Pakistan are squabbling is because thier nukes are not up to standards they likely have less failsafe than what the US had during WW2, they lack the required central command structure and launch capability lies within the hands of field commanders it’s quite different than what the established nuclear powers have. This whole moral relativism has to stop.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Furthermore, there's an inherent instability to a less developed nuclear state, specifically one that lacks a credible second strike capability. In such a state, if nuclear delivery vehicles could conceivably be taken out in a first strike by an opponent, it is essential that everything be done to prevent that from being possible. Notably, this means compressing the detection-to-launch schedule as much as possible. Which in turn usually means allowing battlefield commanders to launch under certain conditions.
some_random 9y ago
There are different rules for countries that run concentration camps, yes.
philipkglass 9y ago
The US operated reactors to produce weapons plutonium at the Hanford site in Washington state and the Savannah River site in South Carolina. The last Hanford reactor making weapons plutonium shut down in 1987 and the last of the Savannah River plutonium reactors shut down in 1988. Commercial power reactors like those used for electricity in the US produce plutonium that has an isotopic composition unfavorable for weapons. It has more plutonium 240 than weapons grade material. The high spontaneous fission rate of Pu-240 makes it difficult to produce reliable weapons that reach full yield without pre-detonation. It's fair to criticize the US for holding on to its old stockpiles of weapons plutonium. It's not sensible to criticize it for continuing to make weapons plutonium, because it hasn't done that in 30 years.
amitprayal 9y ago
North korea is evil, millions of lives ruined due to 1 guy

madez 9y ago

Rest assured that there are others who think that the nuclear weapons of the USA are equally indefensible. We must bannish them globally.

soperj 9y ago
Absolutely. There's the possibility that other countries could use Nukes on human populations. The USA already has.
dahdum 9y ago
There is a reasonable school of thought that banning them would increase the amount of warfare in the world, by drastically reducing the risk and scope of retaliation. As it stands, they make the cost of war too high between major powers. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps that it is worth the cost in lives from smaller wars to prevent mass casualties in nuclear ones?
- mikeash 9y ago
  What’s worse, repeated cycles of conventional conflicts between major powers, or peace between major powers with a ~1% chance per year of total annihilation? (Adjust the percentage as you see fit. I think that’s a reasonable guess but it’s definitely a guess.) I think the second one is clearly worse. The idea that nuclear weapons are good because they’ve resulted in peace only makes sense if you think the chances of a nuclear world war are negligible. I don’t think that’s true but some people seem to.
- madez 9y ago
  I don't have an opinion on how having nukes saves lives, but in either case I think there is a better solution. An international, democratically legitimized world council that has the competence to bind nations governments and override their decisions. Akin to the EU, but globally. That is an alternative, successful way to keep peace. The security council of the UN is not up to the task because of many obvious shortcomings. But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    That world council has to get buy-in from every nation, either voluntarily or not. Voluntary won't happen. And the "non-voluntary" part means, essentially, going to war to keep the peace. > But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing. Compared to being ruled by something akin to the UN? (Not the security council, the full UN.) Absolutely, my nation is a good thing compared to that. Compared to being ruled by the EU? Maybe even compared to that. (And you wouldn't get something as good as the EU, for the same reasons that the UN wasn't as good as the EU.) Now, true, not every nation can say that. And we weren't talking about affairs within the nation, but affairs between nations. Still... I'd say that assuming the nation is a bad thing "assumes facts not in evidence", as they say in court.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    The world is currently moving away from democracy, so the ideal of a democratic world council may not be possible for generations, if ever. I agree it would be the best way to prevent war, but a slide into autocracy there could hamstring humanity for centuries. Even without autocracy, global views are already anti-LGBT, and otherwise do not reflect the progressive values of western democracies.
  - basementcat 9y ago
    Even with the single world government, there will still be factional violence. Ethnic tensions and tribalism won't magically go away. People who believe that their voices haven't been heard still violently riot in even the most democratic of nations.
- danbruc 9y ago
  Then let's give nukes to every country and we will live in peace and happiness forever.
- opportune 9y ago
  I agree with that. If you think of geopolitics in terms of game theory, we've reached a relatively stable equilibria between the "big" countries (which of course still fight indirectly via proxy wars, including to this day in Yemen/Syria) due to MAD. On any regular timescale it's just so much more beneficial for every party to individually refrain from using nukes against each other, considering how much to lose there is in a retaliation. Plus, actually getting rid of all the nukes would make warfare more attractive, which makes acquiring nukes desirable again. And no nation under threat of total war would rather lose everything than use nuclear weapons. So I don't think the equilibrium of nobody having nukes is at all stable: eventually one country begins to think about warfare, decides they need nukes, creating a power imbalance, causing others to get nukes too. Though of course the flaw of MAD, or even game theory in general, is that it assumes everybody will be a rational actor. People are people, and if someone stupidly violated MAD against their own self-interest or reasoning on some bizarre hundreds/thousands of years timescale, we could all perish. There is a small but nonzero probability on every single day of our lives that we and everything we know will be destroyed by nuclear weapons. So far that day hasn't come yet, and there's no way of knowing how likely it is. But given that banning nukes on an international scale seems unstable anyway, I guess this is the best we can do.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    Assume North Korea has on the order of ten or so nuclear weapons and one day Kim Jong-un goes nuts and launches them all towards the USA. Some are stopped by missile defense systems but a few make it through, hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of victims. What now? Do you really turn North Korea into a sheet of glass because you always threatened mutual destruction? The people of North Korea had mostly nothing to do with what just happend, the responsible people may be hiding in nuclear bunkers. There are also no more nukes posing a further thread. Do you really kill millions of innocent people out of revenge?
    - nokcha 9y ago
      Are you suggesting that nobody in North Korea with the power to stop the launch of a nuclear attack would be severely adversely affected by nuclear retaliation that reduces North Korea to rubble? I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. In fact, I think MAD is one of very few things that could provoke a mutiny against Kim Jong-Un.
agumonkey 9y ago
My argument against nuclear power for emerging countries is that, they will repeat the mistakes US (and maybe EU) did before. And old nuclear powers already started dismantling their arsenal (officially at least). It's not a fairness issue.
mythrwy 9y ago
That's vanishingly unlikely to happen. Nice thought though. I think there is little argument that North Korea is worse by many metrics than the US. Not that the US doesn't have it's own share of sins, it does, but at least it doesn't have dynastic dictatorships and provides some measure of freedom for their citizens. Then again, I live in the US. While there are some things I'd like to see changed in my country, NK having improved military power is definitely not in my interest. Nor is it in the interest of most of the world IMOP. I was not in support of almost any military adventures (or CIA adventures) of the last 20+ years my country has undertaken, very ashamed, wish it had not happened, voted against, protested against, did not support, it happened anyway. But I would support action against the North Korean regime if it came to it. They truly are dangerous to a world order that somewhat works for millions of people.

Koshkin 9y ago

Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

Different rules for us and for our enemies of the moment I don't want to be reductive, but isn't this obvious? While I'd rather there were no nuclear weapons, there are some regimes that I trust more than others to have some technologies. Is it unreasonable to think that?

matuszeg 9y ago
I think everyone thinks that. We just cannot all agree on who to trust and since we cannot agree it turns into an argument over who gets to make the decision of who can or cannot have them. Which will never end.
danbruc 9y ago
You have to change your point of view, from the North Korean point of view it is obviously better if they have the nukes because they don't trust the USA. If you think it would be okay for the USA to blow up a North Korean reactor to prevent them from producing more Plutonium then it would be equally legitimate for North Korea to blow up US nuclear facilities. It is not impossible to justify applying different rules to different countries but you have to be careful to not simply assume you are right or better or stronger.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Like it or not the US has at least the capacity to handle nukes with responsibility and to produce “safe” nukes. It’s also has a well defined and stable chain of command and government. The reason the world shakes when India and Pakistan are squabbling is because thier nukes are not up to standards they likely have less failsafe than what the US had during WW2, they lack the required central command structure and launch capability lies within the hands of field commanders it’s quite different than what the established nuclear powers have. This whole moral relativism has to stop.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Furthermore, there's an inherent instability to a less developed nuclear state, specifically one that lacks a credible second strike capability. In such a state, if nuclear delivery vehicles could conceivably be taken out in a first strike by an opponent, it is essential that everything be done to prevent that from being possible. Notably, this means compressing the detection-to-launch schedule as much as possible. Which in turn usually means allowing battlefield commanders to launch under certain conditions.

some_random 9y ago

There are different rules for countries that run concentration camps, yes.

philipkglass 9y ago

The US operated reactors to produce weapons plutonium at the Hanford site in Washington state and the Savannah River site in South Carolina. The last Hanford reactor making weapons plutonium shut down in 1987 and the last of the Savannah River plutonium reactors shut down in 1988. Commercial power reactors like those used for electricity in the US produce plutonium that has an isotopic composition unfavorable for weapons. It has more plutonium 240 than weapons grade material. The high spontaneous fission rate of Pu-240 makes it difficult to produce reliable weapons that reach full yield without pre-detonation. It's fair to criticize the US for holding on to its old stockpiles of weapons plutonium. It's not sensible to criticize it for continuing to make weapons plutonium, because it hasn't done that in 30 years.

amitprayal 9y ago

North korea is evil, millions of lives ruined due to 1 guy