3 ms·

You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive?

You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? And that's just one example found in the absolute most cursory glance at a brief couple of page summary of part of this leak. >The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile... So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuclear-disarmament-russia http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuc...

jacquesm 16y ago
> is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? I think this leak has done no such thing. It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time. Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant. > So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control. The threat is just as large as it ever was. 30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
- commandar 16y ago
  >Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Or a government with a tenuous grasp on power will simply have to forgo any kind of agreement to dispose of the weapons-ready material to avoid internal backlash. >Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. You know, there are reasons for seeking nuclear non-proliferation that have nothing to do with terrorism, like the fact that Pakistan borders a bitter enemy which is also a nuclear power. >If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. That's the ultimate goal. It's not going to happen overnight, and treating steps toward that goal as if they don't count is nothing more than childish fantasy. >30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference. Ah, this is why preventing the production of more arms in Pakistan isn't that big a deal. If they've got one bomb, they may as well have them all, I guess.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The only country that has ever used nuclear arms and that currently holds one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons is not engaging in this diplomatic effort to further the interest of those that would like to see nuclear weapons disappear, they do so because they would like to maintain their edge. One nuclear weapon is indeed almost as bad as all of them, imagine a nuke on Islamabad or New Delhi. In those places a single nuclear weapon could kill millions, and it would take a very large effort to add to the scale of devastation. 10 nuclear weapons on either the Pakistani or the Indian side used against the other could cause hundreds of millions of people to eventually die of the direct or indirect causes of the use of these weapons. The US is like the parent that tells its children not to smoke because smoking is bad for your health but can not give up smoking themselves. Pakistan already has all the nuclear weapons it needs, and so does India, and neither of those countries will give them up because of pressure from the US, they will only give them up because they themselves, together will decide that a nuclear stand-off is to nobodies benefit.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  If a rogue nuke goes off in Manhattan, you probably won't die (though fallout patterns are no one's friend), but your life will get measurably worse, guaranteed. The damage isn't just physical, it's psychological and economic, and the ripple effects will reach you, and they will be serious. As far as making non-proliferation more difficult, this official documentation removes plausible deniability for several governments in condemning Iran's move towards nuclear weapons in private while remaining necessarily neutral in public. The effect isn't massive, but it is real, and it does matter.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Chances of a rogue nuke going off in Manhattan are slight compared to New Delhi, Islamabad, Tel-Aviv or many other places. Moscow even...
    - waterlesscloud 16y ago
      I disagree with that (which city has been the target of the biggest, most dramatic terror attacks thus far?), but ok, fine, let's go with your list. What is most likely to be the source of a rogue nuke in any of those cities? One of the nations where the US is trying to avoid nuclear development or at the very least keep the stockpile under control.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        If this happens (and I hope it doesn't) it will likely be because of nuclear material that was lost in former Soviet Republic states and it will likely have very little to do the with the US or with non-proliferation agreements. If the US kept its secrets under wraps neither India or Pakistan would have the bomb in the first place, keeping things secret now is not going to put that genie back in the bottle. The US has been spied upon successfully by countless nations to get those secrets including Israel, Pakistan, India (Canada also implicated there), the Russians took care of most of the rest of them, China gave some help to Pakistan and North Korea. France developed its nuclear arsenal independently, the UK had a lot of help from the US. Non proliferation seems to mean: not to states not friendly to us. But in reality that translates to eventually the knowledge and the material will spread everywhere unless the production of the materials is halted. Which would mean a shut-down of all nuclear facilities, and that's a very difficult bridge to cross, it would cause a much stronger dependence on other fossil fuels. The irony of all this is that now Iran uses the 'power plant' figleaf to set up it's own nuclear facilities.

jacquesm 16y ago

> is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? I think this leak has done no such thing. It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time. Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant. > So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control. The threat is just as large as it ever was. 30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.

commandar 16y ago
>Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Or a government with a tenuous grasp on power will simply have to forgo any kind of agreement to dispose of the weapons-ready material to avoid internal backlash. >Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. You know, there are reasons for seeking nuclear non-proliferation that have nothing to do with terrorism, like the fact that Pakistan borders a bitter enemy which is also a nuclear power. >If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. That's the ultimate goal. It's not going to happen overnight, and treating steps toward that goal as if they don't count is nothing more than childish fantasy. >30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference. Ah, this is why preventing the production of more arms in Pakistan isn't that big a deal. If they've got one bomb, they may as well have them all, I guess.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The only country that has ever used nuclear arms and that currently holds one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons is not engaging in this diplomatic effort to further the interest of those that would like to see nuclear weapons disappear, they do so because they would like to maintain their edge. One nuclear weapon is indeed almost as bad as all of them, imagine a nuke on Islamabad or New Delhi. In those places a single nuclear weapon could kill millions, and it would take a very large effort to add to the scale of devastation. 10 nuclear weapons on either the Pakistani or the Indian side used against the other could cause hundreds of millions of people to eventually die of the direct or indirect causes of the use of these weapons. The US is like the parent that tells its children not to smoke because smoking is bad for your health but can not give up smoking themselves. Pakistan already has all the nuclear weapons it needs, and so does India, and neither of those countries will give them up because of pressure from the US, they will only give them up because they themselves, together will decide that a nuclear stand-off is to nobodies benefit.
waterlesscloud 16y ago
If a rogue nuke goes off in Manhattan, you probably won't die (though fallout patterns are no one's friend), but your life will get measurably worse, guaranteed. The damage isn't just physical, it's psychological and economic, and the ripple effects will reach you, and they will be serious. As far as making non-proliferation more difficult, this official documentation removes plausible deniability for several governments in condemning Iran's move towards nuclear weapons in private while remaining necessarily neutral in public. The effect isn't massive, but it is real, and it does matter.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Chances of a rogue nuke going off in Manhattan are slight compared to New Delhi, Islamabad, Tel-Aviv or many other places. Moscow even...
  - waterlesscloud 16y ago
    I disagree with that (which city has been the target of the biggest, most dramatic terror attacks thus far?), but ok, fine, let's go with your list. What is most likely to be the source of a rogue nuke in any of those cities? One of the nations where the US is trying to avoid nuclear development or at the very least keep the stockpile under control.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      If this happens (and I hope it doesn't) it will likely be because of nuclear material that was lost in former Soviet Republic states and it will likely have very little to do the with the US or with non-proliferation agreements. If the US kept its secrets under wraps neither India or Pakistan would have the bomb in the first place, keeping things secret now is not going to put that genie back in the bottle. The US has been spied upon successfully by countless nations to get those secrets including Israel, Pakistan, India (Canada also implicated there), the Russians took care of most of the rest of them, China gave some help to Pakistan and North Korea. France developed its nuclear arsenal independently, the UK had a lot of help from the US. Non proliferation seems to mean: not to states not friendly to us. But in reality that translates to eventually the knowledge and the material will spread everywhere unless the production of the materials is halted. Which would mean a shut-down of all nuclear facilities, and that's a very difficult bridge to cross, it would cause a much stronger dependence on other fossil fuels. The irony of all this is that now Iran uses the 'power plant' figleaf to set up it's own nuclear facilities.