3 ms·

Taking this a bit off topic, but I'm curious about HN's thoughts on the following. I'm a pacifist, so obviously I'm for the idea of a nuke free world. But I do

Taking this a bit off topic, but I'm curious about HN's thoughts on the following. I'm a pacifist, so obviously I'm for the idea of a nuke free world. But I don't understand how it could be achievable. I mean, is it that hard to build a nuke? The required knowledge has spread globally by now. As a side effect of general progress in science and engineering it will be cheaper, not more expensive, to build nukes. Do people share my pessimism about this? I wonder what constructive, believable steps the world could take towards world peace if we accept that some day, any somewhat-functional state can build a nuke if they really really want to. I'm sure that there's ways, maybe even other than mutually assured destruction, to make actually using such nukes uninteresting to even the most insane dictator.

a_d 8y ago
Good thought experiment. Assuming all nukes are destroyed and we achieve zero-state. From that point onward it would be hard for a rogue state/agency to develop a weapon. Because the supply-chain monitoring, which is already quite advanced, would be even more severe (since all advanced countries would be aligned). This means it would be harder to get raw materials (Eg fuel doesn’t occur naturally, and has to be manufactured), factory equipment etc.; above certain quantities drones/aircrafts/satellites are pretty decent at catching radiation signatures —- basically all the tech that used today to prevent new countries from adding nuclear capabilities, would work —- just better and more intensely, because all advanced countries would be aligned. (I am just putting forth a hypothesis for why once we go to zero nukes, it might be possible to stay at zero nukes using existing tech)
bumholio 8y ago
> any somewhat-functional state can build a nuke if they really really want to. We are already in such a world, what prevents proliferation are not technical reasons, but the strong international pressure - both by nuclear and non-nuclear states. It's not unfathomable to conceive a world where such pressure (and the threat of conventional attacks) could be strong enough to prevent any proliferation, where the international community would closely watch over any such activity and immediately stomp on any small scale dictator looking for an easy edge. What's harder to imagine is a way to get from here to there. Before engaging in any multilateral talks and treaties, I believe the mere hint of renouncing nukes would be political suicide inside US.
fulafel 8y ago
Most industrialized countries could build nukes since the 70s, but haven't. I the ease of manufacturing concern will matter more once it becomes cheap for non government actors, but the nuclear deterrent effect doesn't work against terror cell/guerilla insurrection type threats.
chillingeffect 8y ago
The weapons we make are driven by our states of mind. If we can clean ourselves up psychologically, feel safer, less threatened, we wouldn't bother. If we were more fearful now, we'd be making more and scarier stuff. But we've advanced past the point of people just wanting money and being greedy... in the u.s., we're currently acting out xenophobia and revenge. But many countries don't have this hateful virus. It's up to us to heal ourselves.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I'm a pacifist, so obviously I'm for the idea of a nuke free world. But I don't understand how it could be achievable. I mean, is it that hard to build a nuke? The required knowledge has spread globally by now. As a side effect of general progress in science and engineering it will be cheaper, not more expensive, to build nukes. Do people share my pessimism about this? Nukes are expensive to build even if you know how, and expensive to maintain. That puts a bit of a stop on small countries. But those costs will obviously get smaller with time, as this is what technology generally does - makes difficult things easier, expensive things cheaper. Regardless, things are going to get more dangerous with time, really, simply because from where we stand now, all interesting technologies we can conceive are either directly or indirectly powerful enough to be dangerous. Here are few thoughts. - Power storage. Destructive capability is tied to power density. Which is the same thing we're trying to improve, as our world needs more energy and more portable energy. The difference between a battery and a grenade now is how rapidly it releases accumulated energy. - Interplanetary travel. As they say, any drive technology that's powerful enough to be interesting - that is, giving us weeks/months of travel time within the Solar System - is also a weapon of mass destruction. With our current understanding of physics, we'll need to be able to handle in day-to-day usage amounts of energy comparable to nuclear weapons. And that's not even touching the kinetic energy (relative to Earth) stored in asteroids flying around the Sun, that could be unleashed on this world with just a slight nudge at the right time. - Nanotechnology and biotechnology. They're one in the limit (life itself is nothing but advanced nanotech we didn't create, and don't know how to control yet). They offer unprecedented capabilities all across the board, from healthcare through manufacturing to quality-of-life, and of course, military. If we crack that, we'll be pretty much on fast track to godhood. And yet even today we can see the potential for disasters - from genetically engineered plagues, through precise genetic attacks, gene drives, plastic-eating bacteria, to the well-known grey goo scenario. - Superhuman AI - if we actually get a self-improving mind working, that's most likely game over for humanity. I'm not trying to scare people away from science and technology. Hell, I'm looking forward to all things on the above list - I'm just not sure if, as a civilization, we're mature enough not to inflict great suffering on ourselves with such capabilities.

a_d 8y ago

Good thought experiment. Assuming all nukes are destroyed and we achieve zero-state. From that point onward it would be hard for a rogue state/agency to develop a weapon. Because the supply-chain monitoring, which is already quite advanced, would be even more severe (since all advanced countries would be aligned). This means it would be harder to get raw materials (Eg fuel doesn’t occur naturally, and has to be manufactured), factory equipment etc.; above certain quantities drones/aircrafts/satellites are pretty decent at catching radiation signatures —- basically all the tech that used today to prevent new countries from adding nuclear capabilities, would work —- just better and more intensely, because all advanced countries would be aligned. (I am just putting forth a hypothesis for why once we go to zero nukes, it might be possible to stay at zero nukes using existing tech)

bumholio 8y ago

> any somewhat-functional state can build a nuke if they really really want to. We are already in such a world, what prevents proliferation are not technical reasons, but the strong international pressure - both by nuclear and non-nuclear states. It's not unfathomable to conceive a world where such pressure (and the threat of conventional attacks) could be strong enough to prevent any proliferation, where the international community would closely watch over any such activity and immediately stomp on any small scale dictator looking for an easy edge. What's harder to imagine is a way to get from here to there. Before engaging in any multilateral talks and treaties, I believe the mere hint of renouncing nukes would be political suicide inside US.

fulafel 8y ago

Most industrialized countries could build nukes since the 70s, but haven't. I the ease of manufacturing concern will matter more once it becomes cheap for non government actors, but the nuclear deterrent effect doesn't work against terror cell/guerilla insurrection type threats.

chillingeffect 8y ago

The weapons we make are driven by our states of mind. If we can clean ourselves up psychologically, feel safer, less threatened, we wouldn't bother. If we were more fearful now, we'd be making more and scarier stuff. But we've advanced past the point of people just wanting money and being greedy... in the u.s., we're currently acting out xenophobia and revenge. But many countries don't have this hateful virus. It's up to us to heal ourselves.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I'm a pacifist, so obviously I'm for the idea of a nuke free world. But I don't understand how it could be achievable. I mean, is it that hard to build a nuke? The required knowledge has spread globally by now. As a side effect of general progress in science and engineering it will be cheaper, not more expensive, to build nukes. Do people share my pessimism about this? Nukes are expensive to build even if you know how, and expensive to maintain. That puts a bit of a stop on small countries. But those costs will obviously get smaller with time, as this is what technology generally does - makes difficult things easier, expensive things cheaper. Regardless, things are going to get more dangerous with time, really, simply because from where we stand now, all interesting technologies we can conceive are either directly or indirectly powerful enough to be dangerous. Here are few thoughts. - Power storage. Destructive capability is tied to power density. Which is the same thing we're trying to improve, as our world needs more energy and more portable energy. The difference between a battery and a grenade now is how rapidly it releases accumulated energy. - Interplanetary travel. As they say, any drive technology that's powerful enough to be interesting - that is, giving us weeks/months of travel time within the Solar System - is also a weapon of mass destruction. With our current understanding of physics, we'll need to be able to handle in day-to-day usage amounts of energy comparable to nuclear weapons. And that's not even touching the kinetic energy (relative to Earth) stored in asteroids flying around the Sun, that could be unleashed on this world with just a slight nudge at the right time. - Nanotechnology and biotechnology. They're one in the limit (life itself is nothing but advanced nanotech we didn't create, and don't know how to control yet). They offer unprecedented capabilities all across the board, from healthcare through manufacturing to quality-of-life, and of course, military. If we crack that, we'll be pretty much on fast track to godhood. And yet even today we can see the potential for disasters - from genetically engineered plagues, through precise genetic attacks, gene drives, plastic-eating bacteria, to the well-known grey goo scenario. - Superhuman AI - if we actually get a self-improving mind working, that's most likely game over for humanity. I'm not trying to scare people away from science and technology. Hell, I'm looking forward to all things on the above list - I'm just not sure if, as a civilization, we're mature enough not to inflict great suffering on ourselves with such capabilities.