3 ms·

Utility: - Leverage in persuading scientists to become sources for foreign intelligence agencies, or to participate in sabotage. - Delays development. - Disi

Utility: - Leverage in persuading scientists to become sources for foreign intelligence agencies, or to participate in sabotage. - Delays development. - Disincentivizes nuclear weapons research as career path. The US and Russia experienced something on the order of 15 known nuclear weapons accidents despite attempts a command & control designed to prevent such occurrences. This doesn't include the unknown amount of weapons grade materials lost/stolen; or the possibility a few finished weapons may have been sold. How many rolls of the dice, by how many additional actors, before the world's luck runs out? From a risk management perspective, if there must be nuclear weapons (realistically) then not every country is capable of stewardship and possession of such weapons. One need not take sides between, say, Iran and the US/Israel to make an ethical case for extreme efforts to prevent developing nations from obtaining nuclear weapons. The same ethical argument, however, strongly argues for open-sourcing nuclear stewardship technologies so that gaps in proliferation prevention are bridged.

bequanna 5y ago
> The same ethical argument, however, strongly argues for open-sourcing nuclear stewardship technologies so that gaps in proliferation prevention are bridged. I’ve wondered about this as well. It seems to be me that it would actually be a net benefit to leak what you believe to be solid command and control procedures even to your enemies to avoid an accidental attack.
- rwallace 5y ago
  Yep. During the Cold War, the US actually shared its Permissive Action Link technology with the Soviets for exactly that reason.
dyingworld 5y ago
I disagree with selecting nuclear stewards. In as much as nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to invasion and regime change, many countries will continue to pursue it and will support my political leaders on such a course myself. It’s either we all give it up or we all have it. Why are some countries better stewards ? Some USA’s elected leaders are close to crazy to us from outside. And they came close to a coup not long ago. It’s almost the same for climate change. The developed countries knew of the impact of their emissions decades ago but continued to burn fossil fuel. The developing countries don’t have a choice; either burn fossils or they will forever be poor. The alternative are currently too expensive. It’s either nuclear power is democratized or people keep burning fossils.
- PradeetPatel 5y ago
  The benefit of individual nations will always triumph over collective interests, such is the nature of power politics in the 21st century. Climate change is a good example. It has been established that the rising sea level and bush fires proved to be challenges to many nations, but some developed nations see it as an unique opportunity to turn uninhabitable permafrost covered wasteland into arid soil that could be put to use. With national interests in mind, I strongly suspect the nuclear stewardship may be susceptible to abuse skin to the UN security Council.
LatteLazy 5y ago
If Iran thinks they are safer with nuclear weapons (and accidents) than without, they have as much right to make that decision as anyone else. The sad truth is that wars of aggression are common, and nuclear weapons accidents are rare.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

bequanna 5y ago

> The same ethical argument, however, strongly argues for open-sourcing nuclear stewardship technologies so that gaps in proliferation prevention are bridged. I’ve wondered about this as well. It seems to be me that it would actually be a net benefit to leak what you believe to be solid command and control procedures even to your enemies to avoid an accidental attack.

rwallace 5y ago
Yep. During the Cold War, the US actually shared its Permissive Action Link technology with the Soviets for exactly that reason.

dyingworld 5y ago

I disagree with selecting nuclear stewards. In as much as nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to invasion and regime change, many countries will continue to pursue it and will support my political leaders on such a course myself. It’s either we all give it up or we all have it. Why are some countries better stewards ? Some USA’s elected leaders are close to crazy to us from outside. And they came close to a coup not long ago. It’s almost the same for climate change. The developed countries knew of the impact of their emissions decades ago but continued to burn fossil fuel. The developing countries don’t have a choice; either burn fossils or they will forever be poor. The alternative are currently too expensive. It’s either nuclear power is democratized or people keep burning fossils.

PradeetPatel 5y ago
The benefit of individual nations will always triumph over collective interests, such is the nature of power politics in the 21st century. Climate change is a good example. It has been established that the rising sea level and bush fires proved to be challenges to many nations, but some developed nations see it as an unique opportunity to turn uninhabitable permafrost covered wasteland into arid soil that could be put to use. With national interests in mind, I strongly suspect the nuclear stewardship may be susceptible to abuse skin to the UN security Council.

LatteLazy 5y ago

If Iran thinks they are safer with nuclear weapons (and accidents) than without, they have as much right to make that decision as anyone else. The sad truth is that wars of aggression are common, and nuclear weapons accidents are rare.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]