6 ms·

Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? I know it may look naive at first, but intelligence services are super advanced these days. If some country would try

Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? I know it may look naive at first, but intelligence services are super advanced these days. If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.

barelysapient 5y ago
How would such a thing even be enforced?
infamouscow 5y ago
> intelligence services are super advanced these days If that were true, how do you reconcile every Western intelligence agency being 100% wrong about the likelihood of Russia invading Ukraine?
- dahdum 5y ago
  The US/UK had been sounding the alarm for several weeks before it happened.
- dktoao 5y ago
  Really? They were basically pre-cog on that front. Everything they said was going to happen happened when they said it was going to happen. At least from the layman's perspective of what intelligence they released to the public. Which there was a lot of. Who the heck is saying this? RT? Fox News?
- Aeolos 5y ago
  I don't know if we were reading the same media, but I was surprised by how _accurate_ the invasion predictions were. Down to the day of the invasion, it was as if the western intelligence services were two steps ahead throughout the build up and actual invasion, dispelling the Russian misinformation campaign in real time.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Here’s the litany of strategists predicting it: https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1498491107902062592 https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790...
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    So what territory is Russia going to invade next according to the same experts?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling.
      - throw_m239339 5y ago
        > You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling. No. You seem to forget that many strategists also thought Russia wouldn't launch a full scale war against Ukraine.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        It was possible to predict the Ukraine war; such an operation requires planning, troop moves, etc. It's very clear US intelligence had a good handle on this. Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts.
        throw_m239339 5y ago
        > Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts. Russia threatened Finland with invasion if they join NATO. Are the Russians actually going to invade Finland when the later joins NATO?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Intelligence has known Russia would invade Ukraine since the Crimean invasion in 2014. Trump was impeached over threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine. This isn't a surprise to anyone.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Uh, what? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-invasion-plans-did-it-matter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-i... > For months, the White House made highly unusual releases of intelligence findings about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans to attack Ukraine. Hoping to preempt an invasion, it released details of Russian troop buildups and warned repeatedly that a major assault was imminent. > Critics of U.S. intelligence — including Russian officials who dismissed invasion allegations as fantasy — had been pointing to past failures like the false identification of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But Russia’s invasion so far has played out largely as the Biden administration said it would back in December, with nearly 200,000 troops striking from several sides of Ukraine. Dec 4, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukraine-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukrain... Dec 23, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukraine-military-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukrain... Jan 19, 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-r... Feb 11, 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-time/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-tim...
Buttons840 5y ago
Sounds great, but how do we enforce it? Invading the countries that don't want to give up nukes will make them "give them up" in a bad way.
yetanotherloser 5y ago
How do we take them away from a country that has them already? How do you establish this level of power over all countries without establishing a de facto global tyranny? How do you back up that tyranny with adequate force when states that surely will not accept it already have so much force themselves? I'm inclined to put this one on the "shrug and accept it" pile and focus on other things. It's not like we have a shortage of other problems to contend with.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  You write and enter treaties to gradually dismantle nuclear weapons, and you impose sanctions on nations the refuse to do so. This would be a huge undertaking, but I think we live in an era that is basically the pile up of huge undertakings systematically put off.
  - yetanotherloser 5y ago
    I agree that we live in an era with a pileup of huge undertakings put off too long, but disagree that this is really a new thing. Meanwhile, treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons have been around for decades and have reduced arsenals and proliferation a bit, but not as much as anyone might hope. Sanctions don't appear to be stopping people killing their neighbours right now, so I must admit I am doubtful that they can stop people preparing to potentially kill in future.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
Despite the existential threat they pose, nukes have had a remarkably stabilizing effect on the world.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Everything is very stable until it is not. Then I suppose stability still occurs just in the ashes of our civilisation.
tiborsaas 5y ago
Look at the banned weapons the Russians are using against Ukraine. Banning is nice in theory.
jasode 5y ago
>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? Here's an existing worldwide ban that a bunch of countries already signed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N... But nuclear powers like United States, Russia, China, North Korea didn't sign it. Now what? What's the game theory logic that would incentivize a country to disarm its nuclear weapons? Even if a country signs it, how do you monitor every underground missile silo or submarine in the ocean for compliance?
- csee 5y ago
  You agree to mutual, simultaneous reductions that are audited by an independent body.
  - jl6 5y ago
    A smaller number of nukes might increase the likelihood of them being used, if their use wouldn’t guarantee total annihilation of either side. They might become a tactical option, because even if you get nuked back, you might still live to fight on. Still safer for the world in general though.
    - csee 5y ago
      Ideally we find the number that still effectively guarantees MAD but is currently smaller than what we have now, so at least it won't cause extinction but will have the same deterrence capability. Do we really need 1500 nukes on either side for full deterrence? Wouldn't 500 do the job?
- panax 5y ago
  Yes the problem is detection and enforcement and not clear how to achieve this. It is imperative that we someday overcome this though as the risk of accidental escalation at any point in time is significant and is bound to happen some day. Everyone must come to the recognition that possession of nuclear weapons is an aggression against everyone given their widespread impact and it is in everyone's self interest to not allow for their existence. I'm also not sure how easy it would be to keep large quantities of weapons completely hidden. There is also the issue of incorrect or false accusations of possession of the weapons to allow for aggression against an entity, it hasn't even been very long since the last time this happened either.
klyrs 5y ago
> If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately. Like present day North Korea and Iran? Intelligence services let us know that development is underway. But as GI Joe would remind us, knowing is only half the battle. Who enforces the ban, and who pries nukes out of US, Russia and China's cold dead hands without setting any of them off?
andy_ppp 5y ago
Game theory says everyone would then be itching to build them quickly, secretly while nobody else had them launch and become the hegemony.
enchiridion 5y ago
Probably because of the risk. MAD is stable.
- csee 5y ago
  Respect for the logic of MAD is premised on rational leadership. Eventually, one day, that won't be true.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? No country is going to give up their nukes. Ukraine did exactly that yet here we are...
cracrecry 5y ago
>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? Because you will become the slave of some country that does not ban those? I mean, it does not require a tremendous amount of imagination after you can see it for yourself in Ukraine. >I know it may look naive at first. >If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately. I don't know what "we" means, the US of America? Certainly small countries have not such bast resources and intelligence as the US to control the rest of the world. But even the US is not omniscient, and if it were and could know everything it is not omnipotent to tell the other countries what to do.

barelysapient 5y ago

How would such a thing even be enforced?

infamouscow 5y ago

> intelligence services are super advanced these days If that were true, how do you reconcile every Western intelligence agency being 100% wrong about the likelihood of Russia invading Ukraine?

dahdum 5y ago
The US/UK had been sounding the alarm for several weeks before it happened.
dktoao 5y ago
Really? They were basically pre-cog on that front. Everything they said was going to happen happened when they said it was going to happen. At least from the layman's perspective of what intelligence they released to the public. Which there was a lot of. Who the heck is saying this? RT? Fox News?
Aeolos 5y ago
I don't know if we were reading the same media, but I was surprised by how _accurate_ the invasion predictions were. Down to the day of the invasion, it was as if the western intelligence services were two steps ahead throughout the build up and actual invasion, dispelling the Russian misinformation campaign in real time.
dr_dshiv 5y ago
Here’s the litany of strategists predicting it: https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1498491107902062592 https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790...
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  So what territory is Russia going to invade next according to the same experts?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling.
    - throw_m239339 5y ago
      > You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling. No. You seem to forget that many strategists also thought Russia wouldn't launch a full scale war against Ukraine.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        It was possible to predict the Ukraine war; such an operation requires planning, troop moves, etc. It's very clear US intelligence had a good handle on this. Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts.
        throw_m239339 5y ago
        > Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts. Russia threatened Finland with invasion if they join NATO. Are the Russians actually going to invade Finland when the later joins NATO?
colinmhayes 5y ago
Intelligence has known Russia would invade Ukraine since the Crimean invasion in 2014. Trump was impeached over threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine. This isn't a surprise to anyone.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Uh, what? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-invasion-plans-did-it-matter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-i... > For months, the White House made highly unusual releases of intelligence findings about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans to attack Ukraine. Hoping to preempt an invasion, it released details of Russian troop buildups and warned repeatedly that a major assault was imminent. > Critics of U.S. intelligence — including Russian officials who dismissed invasion allegations as fantasy — had been pointing to past failures like the false identification of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But Russia’s invasion so far has played out largely as the Biden administration said it would back in December, with nearly 200,000 troops striking from several sides of Ukraine. Dec 4, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukraine-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukrain... Dec 23, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukraine-military-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukrain... Jan 19, 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-r... Feb 11, 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-time/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-tim...

Buttons840 5y ago

Sounds great, but how do we enforce it? Invading the countries that don't want to give up nukes will make them "give them up" in a bad way.

yetanotherloser 5y ago

How do we take them away from a country that has them already? How do you establish this level of power over all countries without establishing a de facto global tyranny? How do you back up that tyranny with adequate force when states that surely will not accept it already have so much force themselves? I'm inclined to put this one on the "shrug and accept it" pile and focus on other things. It's not like we have a shortage of other problems to contend with.

dv_dt 5y ago
You write and enter treaties to gradually dismantle nuclear weapons, and you impose sanctions on nations the refuse to do so. This would be a huge undertaking, but I think we live in an era that is basically the pile up of huge undertakings systematically put off.
- yetanotherloser 5y ago
  I agree that we live in an era with a pileup of huge undertakings put off too long, but disagree that this is really a new thing. Meanwhile, treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons have been around for decades and have reduced arsenals and proliferation a bit, but not as much as anyone might hope. Sanctions don't appear to be stopping people killing their neighbours right now, so I must admit I am doubtful that they can stop people preparing to potentially kill in future.

Enginerrrd 5y ago

Despite the existential threat they pose, nukes have had a remarkably stabilizing effect on the world.

andy_ppp 5y ago
Everything is very stable until it is not. Then I suppose stability still occurs just in the ashes of our civilisation.

tiborsaas 5y ago

Look at the banned weapons the Russians are using against Ukraine. Banning is nice in theory.

jasode 5y ago

>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? Here's an existing worldwide ban that a bunch of countries already signed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N... But nuclear powers like United States, Russia, China, North Korea didn't sign it. Now what? What's the game theory logic that would incentivize a country to disarm its nuclear weapons? Even if a country signs it, how do you monitor every underground missile silo or submarine in the ocean for compliance?

csee 5y ago
You agree to mutual, simultaneous reductions that are audited by an independent body.
- jl6 5y ago
  A smaller number of nukes might increase the likelihood of them being used, if their use wouldn’t guarantee total annihilation of either side. They might become a tactical option, because even if you get nuked back, you might still live to fight on. Still safer for the world in general though.
  - csee 5y ago
    Ideally we find the number that still effectively guarantees MAD but is currently smaller than what we have now, so at least it won't cause extinction but will have the same deterrence capability. Do we really need 1500 nukes on either side for full deterrence? Wouldn't 500 do the job?
panax 5y ago
Yes the problem is detection and enforcement and not clear how to achieve this. It is imperative that we someday overcome this though as the risk of accidental escalation at any point in time is significant and is bound to happen some day. Everyone must come to the recognition that possession of nuclear weapons is an aggression against everyone given their widespread impact and it is in everyone's self interest to not allow for their existence. I'm also not sure how easy it would be to keep large quantities of weapons completely hidden. There is also the issue of incorrect or false accusations of possession of the weapons to allow for aggression against an entity, it hasn't even been very long since the last time this happened either.

klyrs 5y ago

> If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately. Like present day North Korea and Iran? Intelligence services let us know that development is underway. But as GI Joe would remind us, knowing is only half the battle. Who enforces the ban, and who pries nukes out of US, Russia and China's cold dead hands without setting any of them off?

andy_ppp 5y ago

Game theory says everyone would then be itching to build them quickly, secretly while nobody else had them launch and become the hegemony.

enchiridion 5y ago

Probably because of the risk. MAD is stable.

csee 5y ago
Respect for the logic of MAD is premised on rational leadership. Eventually, one day, that won't be true.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? No country is going to give up their nukes. Ukraine did exactly that yet here we are...

cracrecry 5y ago

>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together? Because you will become the slave of some country that does not ban those? I mean, it does not require a tremendous amount of imagination after you can see it for yourself in Ukraine. >I know it may look naive at first. >If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately. I don't know what "we" means, the US of America? Certainly small countries have not such bast resources and intelligence as the US to control the rest of the world. But even the US is not omniscient, and if it were and could know everything it is not omnipotent to tell the other countries what to do.