4 ms·

>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 pe

>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.
- commandar 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. So every American or Russian or other person from a nuclear power that argues in favor of non-proliferation is simply looking to "maintain their edge?" >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. Which is exactly why some of us think it'd be nice to keep even more of them from being built. >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. Real progress is nearly impossible in an all-or-nothing world. >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. Pressure from the US and Russia already helped divert at least one potential nuclear crisis between the two countries.[1] Is your argument seriously that the US should just shrug its shoulders and stand aside? I don't see how there's any other logical conclusion to this line of thought you're going down. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%932002_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%932002_India%E2%80%9... EDIT: Of particular note in that article: "A Defense Intelligence Agency report in May 2002 estimated that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, in a worst-case scenario, lead to 8–12 million deaths initially and millions more later from radiation poisoning." On a subcontinent of over a billion people, it could be a lot worse. Sounds like a strong argument for keeping it from being able to.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    You do realize that it was another security leak that put that knowledge there in the first place?
    - commandar 16y ago
      I'm going on what the NYT reported which is: >In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.” EDIT: Unless you mean the casualty estimates? Those were officially released to the press during the crisis. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmir.attack.toll/ http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmi... I'm not really sure which bit of knowledge you're referring to, to be honest.

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.

commandar 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. So every American or Russian or other person from a nuclear power that argues in favor of non-proliferation is simply looking to "maintain their edge?" >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. Which is exactly why some of us think it'd be nice to keep even more of them from being built. >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. Real progress is nearly impossible in an all-or-nothing world. >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. Pressure from the US and Russia already helped divert at least one potential nuclear crisis between the two countries.[1] Is your argument seriously that the US should just shrug its shoulders and stand aside? I don't see how there's any other logical conclusion to this line of thought you're going down. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%932002_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%932002_India%E2%80%9... EDIT: Of particular note in that article: "A Defense Intelligence Agency report in May 2002 estimated that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, in a worst-case scenario, lead to 8–12 million deaths initially and millions more later from radiation poisoning." On a subcontinent of over a billion people, it could be a lot worse. Sounds like a strong argument for keeping it from being able to.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  You do realize that it was another security leak that put that knowledge there in the first place?
  - commandar 16y ago
    I'm going on what the NYT reported which is: >In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.” EDIT: Unless you mean the casualty estimates? Those were officially released to the press during the crisis. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmir.attack.toll/ http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmi... I'm not really sure which bit of knowledge you're referring to, to be honest.