5 ms·

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,

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.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      It also pushes them to strike first since that would be their only opportunity. If your nukes are labeled use it or lose it you will use them and hope for the best.
  - selimthegrim 9y ago
    This isn’t true - the fissile material is kept well separated from the launch vehicles in Pakistan. Tactical assemblies are still on the drawing board.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > the fissile material is kept well separated from the launch vehicles in Pakistan Where does this information come from? I doubt Pakistan is allowing anyone to inspect their weapons.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        It's partially true the US pays them to keep the warheads separated and hopes that it pays the Generals more than the Taliban does and with what has been happening to the Pakistani army in the past 10 years there isn't much difference between many of them and the Taliban anymore. But those warheads are not what we in the west would define as warheads they are much closer to the cartoon version of a nuke you would imagine. All their missiles are based on N. Korean or Chinese designs with the Shaheen 1 being the only one who's actually in somewhat operational ready condition. The Shaheen has a range of only about 900KM and with a nuclear warhead that range is estimated to be closer to 700-750KM which means to use their Nukes the pakistanis would have to drive them to the border pretty much. Beyond that they have the Shaheen 2 has about 2000 KM and is a 2 stage missile It's basically 2 Shaheen 1's Chinese M9's but it's not clear what it's operational status is or how much trust Pakistan has in the system.
        forapurpose 9y ago
        Again, I don't see where this information comes from. Who knows so much about their warheads, how they are stored, U.S. programs to finance that (which sound secret, but I don't know that), etc.?
  - danbruc 9y ago
    Again from your point of view. They probably trust the chain of command in the USA as little as you trust theirs. Wo don't trust them and they don't trust us. If we were really only worried that they build sub-standard nukes, we could always just sell or gift them better technology.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Again this has nothing to do with a subjective point of view this is something that can be objectively quantified with metrics. Most things in life can be objectively quantified and evaluated despite the spirit of relativism which is way to prevelant today. North Korea is an objectively horrid regime and I would not wish it on my worse enemies to live under such conditions. We aren’t arguing about who’s better Belgium or Norway places like North Korea is about as black and white as it can get. And it’s also a huge fallacy that from their point of view it’s XYZ anyone in Norh Korea that is capable of having a point of view knows exactly where they stand and why they do the things they and what the situation is.
      - danbruc 9y ago
        First note that I said the it is not impossible to treat different countries differently. I will also grant you that North Korea is objectively a worse place than the USA for the people living there. But we are debating whether North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, not how they run their country or treat their people. If the USA can justify their nuclear weapons with foreign threads, then North Korea can certainly do the same. If we still conclude they should not or must not have nuclear weapons, and I tend to agree with that, then we have essentially three options. We can nicely ask them to stop and optionally offer some kind of reward or compensation if they do what we want. If that does not work, we can impose sanctions on them and we can do so without any additional justification [1], if we don't want to trade with them because they have nuclear weapons, that is our decision alone, it does not really matter what our reasons are. Obviously some objective justification would make us look much better. If that still doesn't work we can either either give up and let them have nuclear weapons or we can use force against them, whether sabotaging centrifuges or bombing reactors. But now we need a solid justification for our actions unless we are willing to accept that the same actions against us would be equally justified. Also note that we are just eroding the sovereignty of countries. We could treat the world as a kind of democracy, if most countries [2] agree that a specific thing is not okay, then we are legitimized to enforce this with all means necessary. We may or may not be able to objectively argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are an exceptional danger but that doesn't really matter because our legitimization comes from the majority vote and not from any good reasons. It would of course again make us look much better if we could come up with some reasonable objective justifications for why some countries may and others may not have nuclear weapons. There are of course also implications here, for example if the majority of the countries decided to ban nuclear weapons altogether [3], then any state including the USA would have to give up their nuclear weapons. [1] There are of course complications, we may, for example, very well punish innocent citizens for the actions of a few at the top of the state. [2] Maybe weighted by population or something along that line. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Lets see, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a nice place to start. Set in motion in part because USA had placed missiles in Turkey and USSR attempted to do the same in Cuba. Never mind having launch codes set to all zeros for a number of years. And more than a few soiled pants moments where live nukes have been mismanaged (like having a B-52 fly across the nation with a live one in the bay, because someone got it and a training bomb confused). Sorry to say but USA all too often come across as teenagers seen by foreign eyes.
    - lttlrck 9y ago
      A teenager would have hidden those lapses.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Russia had just as many accidents as the US if not more you just don't hear about them. The launch code anecdote isn't actually true http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuke-launch-code-was-never-00000000/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuk... There was never any time where any one could launch the missiles alone with or without the final authorization codes coming through the chain of command. And in some sense you are making my point for me, even if we take the US as a bunch of drunk teenagers N. Korea would be worse, not only that they have complete disregard of human life anyone is too fucking scared to say anything that isn't "yes supreme leader the missile you've designed works perfectly". This is the problem with such regimes that they essentially are biased against any shred of competence. That Sacha Baron Cohen movie was somewhat dead on the money in this regard when 'Aladeen' executes the guy incharge of the missile system because it wasn't pointy enough. Both Saddam and Gaddafi acted similarly with their own weapon programs especially in the latter years which is one of the reasons they got no where. The interference from Israeli, US and probably 20 other intelligence agencies didn't really help the situation. However North Korea is an intelligence gathering nightmare it's a closed up ethnostate where local population has essentially been brainwashed there is little to no outside communication there are almost no embassies or diplomatic missions so running any humint assets in country is pretty much impossible. Which is somewhat scary since there is little to no warning when N. Korea does something essentially all the intelligence is coming from either SIGINT intercepts or VISINT gathered from orbit which limits the insight one can gather this is quite different than what was going on in the cold war. Ironically spying is on the top of the list of reasons to have a diplomatic relationship with another country because running any intelligence operation becomes much harder to near impossible without an embassy.
  - ludston 9y ago
    And yet the US has killed over 100,000 people using nukes.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Moral relativism will stop the day you prove God exists and you get his signature on a universal code of morality.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Ice_cream_suit 9y ago
Do you seriously think that any country in the world is naive enough to trust the US ?
pippy 9y ago
>While I'd rather there were no nuclear weapons Counterpoint: nuclear weapons have forced countries to find alternatives to war. And have likely saved more lives as a result.

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.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    It also pushes them to strike first since that would be their only opportunity. If your nukes are labeled use it or lose it you will use them and hope for the best.
- selimthegrim 9y ago
  This isn’t true - the fissile material is kept well separated from the launch vehicles in Pakistan. Tactical assemblies are still on the drawing board.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > the fissile material is kept well separated from the launch vehicles in Pakistan Where does this information come from? I doubt Pakistan is allowing anyone to inspect their weapons.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      It's partially true the US pays them to keep the warheads separated and hopes that it pays the Generals more than the Taliban does and with what has been happening to the Pakistani army in the past 10 years there isn't much difference between many of them and the Taliban anymore. But those warheads are not what we in the west would define as warheads they are much closer to the cartoon version of a nuke you would imagine. All their missiles are based on N. Korean or Chinese designs with the Shaheen 1 being the only one who's actually in somewhat operational ready condition. The Shaheen has a range of only about 900KM and with a nuclear warhead that range is estimated to be closer to 700-750KM which means to use their Nukes the pakistanis would have to drive them to the border pretty much. Beyond that they have the Shaheen 2 has about 2000 KM and is a 2 stage missile It's basically 2 Shaheen 1's Chinese M9's but it's not clear what it's operational status is or how much trust Pakistan has in the system.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        Again, I don't see where this information comes from. Who knows so much about their warheads, how they are stored, U.S. programs to finance that (which sound secret, but I don't know that), etc.?
- danbruc 9y ago
  Again from your point of view. They probably trust the chain of command in the USA as little as you trust theirs. Wo don't trust them and they don't trust us. If we were really only worried that they build sub-standard nukes, we could always just sell or gift them better technology.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Again this has nothing to do with a subjective point of view this is something that can be objectively quantified with metrics. Most things in life can be objectively quantified and evaluated despite the spirit of relativism which is way to prevelant today. North Korea is an objectively horrid regime and I would not wish it on my worse enemies to live under such conditions. We aren’t arguing about who’s better Belgium or Norway places like North Korea is about as black and white as it can get. And it’s also a huge fallacy that from their point of view it’s XYZ anyone in Norh Korea that is capable of having a point of view knows exactly where they stand and why they do the things they and what the situation is.
    - danbruc 9y ago
      First note that I said the it is not impossible to treat different countries differently. I will also grant you that North Korea is objectively a worse place than the USA for the people living there. But we are debating whether North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, not how they run their country or treat their people. If the USA can justify their nuclear weapons with foreign threads, then North Korea can certainly do the same. If we still conclude they should not or must not have nuclear weapons, and I tend to agree with that, then we have essentially three options. We can nicely ask them to stop and optionally offer some kind of reward or compensation if they do what we want. If that does not work, we can impose sanctions on them and we can do so without any additional justification [1], if we don't want to trade with them because they have nuclear weapons, that is our decision alone, it does not really matter what our reasons are. Obviously some objective justification would make us look much better. If that still doesn't work we can either either give up and let them have nuclear weapons or we can use force against them, whether sabotaging centrifuges or bombing reactors. But now we need a solid justification for our actions unless we are willing to accept that the same actions against us would be equally justified. Also note that we are just eroding the sovereignty of countries. We could treat the world as a kind of democracy, if most countries [2] agree that a specific thing is not okay, then we are legitimized to enforce this with all means necessary. We may or may not be able to objectively argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are an exceptional danger but that doesn't really matter because our legitimization comes from the majority vote and not from any good reasons. It would of course again make us look much better if we could come up with some reasonable objective justifications for why some countries may and others may not have nuclear weapons. There are of course also implications here, for example if the majority of the countries decided to ban nuclear weapons altogether [3], then any state including the USA would have to give up their nuclear weapons. [1] There are of course complications, we may, for example, very well punish innocent citizens for the actions of a few at the top of the state. [2] Maybe weighted by population or something along that line. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Lets see, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a nice place to start. Set in motion in part because USA had placed missiles in Turkey and USSR attempted to do the same in Cuba. Never mind having launch codes set to all zeros for a number of years. And more than a few soiled pants moments where live nukes have been mismanaged (like having a B-52 fly across the nation with a live one in the bay, because someone got it and a training bomb confused). Sorry to say but USA all too often come across as teenagers seen by foreign eyes.
  - lttlrck 9y ago
    A teenager would have hidden those lapses.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Russia had just as many accidents as the US if not more you just don't hear about them. The launch code anecdote isn't actually true http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuke-launch-code-was-never-00000000/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuk... There was never any time where any one could launch the missiles alone with or without the final authorization codes coming through the chain of command. And in some sense you are making my point for me, even if we take the US as a bunch of drunk teenagers N. Korea would be worse, not only that they have complete disregard of human life anyone is too fucking scared to say anything that isn't "yes supreme leader the missile you've designed works perfectly". This is the problem with such regimes that they essentially are biased against any shred of competence. That Sacha Baron Cohen movie was somewhat dead on the money in this regard when 'Aladeen' executes the guy incharge of the missile system because it wasn't pointy enough. Both Saddam and Gaddafi acted similarly with their own weapon programs especially in the latter years which is one of the reasons they got no where. The interference from Israeli, US and probably 20 other intelligence agencies didn't really help the situation. However North Korea is an intelligence gathering nightmare it's a closed up ethnostate where local population has essentially been brainwashed there is little to no outside communication there are almost no embassies or diplomatic missions so running any humint assets in country is pretty much impossible. Which is somewhat scary since there is little to no warning when N. Korea does something essentially all the intelligence is coming from either SIGINT intercepts or VISINT gathered from orbit which limits the insight one can gather this is quite different than what was going on in the cold war. Ironically spying is on the top of the list of reasons to have a diplomatic relationship with another country because running any intelligence operation becomes much harder to near impossible without an embassy.
- ludston 9y ago
  And yet the US has killed over 100,000 people using nukes.
- ionised 9y ago
  Moral relativism will stop the day you prove God exists and you get his signature on a universal code of morality.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Ice_cream_suit 9y ago

Do you seriously think that any country in the world is naive enough to trust the US ?

pippy 9y ago

>While I'd rather there were no nuclear weapons Counterpoint: nuclear weapons have forced countries to find alternatives to war. And have likely saved more lives as a result.