3 ms·
>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 e
by 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 agoYou do realize that it was another security leak that put that knowledge there in the first place?
- commandar 16y agoI'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 agoI hope the times is a balanced enough source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/arti... There is plenty of it in wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
- commandar 16y agoOkay. I'm not sure what your point is. I've been the one arguing that some state secrets are acceptable and their disclosure can have a net negative impact on the world here.
- jacquesm 16y agoMy point is a simple one: controlling information in an effective way happens at the source. Blaming wikileaks for the leak is just as stupid as celebrating a defector from a rogue nation state. That's just a change of viewpoint, the mechanism is the same. If a government is operating clandestinely (and plenty of the material in these cables gives indications of not so clean dealings) then they have themselves to blame, do not create information that can embarrass you in the future, and if you do keep it on a need-to-know basis. If all that comes to light is how the various governments behaved impeccably and had our best interests at heart then there is nothing to fear right ? Sooner or later all information will spread and will be used against you. Non-proliferation starts with disbanding research and with making all possession of such material illegal, not only when it suits you. And so on. It's a principled stance, not one that tries to use these things as just another way to gain the upper hand as a nation. Ask yourself why a person at this level in the government should have access to all this information and proportion blame accordingly. Keep in mind that the main reason people are upset is because the shady nature of their backroom dealings will become public not because 'lives will be in danger', surely more lives were lost by going after non-existent weapons of mass destruction than there ever were lost due to terrorism. If human lives were so important then surely Dr. Kelly would have been listened to, and Hans Blix to boot. It's all just spun for what it's worth, and plenty of times for more than it's worth because 'our' governments are the good guys, or so we are led to believe.