4 ms·

>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_t

by 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.
- throwaway_4ever 5y ago
  And when you say it hasn't been very long since, you mean that it's literally happening right now. One of Russia's insane excuses is that Ukraine is trying to build nuclear weapons.
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    Still sounds a lot less serious than when we invaded Iraq using the lie that they had biological weapons. We caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. We bombed the country to hell indiscriminately.
js8 5y ago
> Now what? We need to talk about it more. With 9/11 (and some American attempts to establish nuclear 1st strike doctrine), it sort of fell off the radar. Noam Chomsky always mentions nuclear weapons as the biggest threat to humankind, along with global warming. We need to emphasize the uselessness/cost of nuclear weapons for rational/moral actors and the risk of irrational actors taking control. The two largest nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) have been steadily decreasing over past 30 years, but it could happen faster.
qqqwerty 5y ago
If I am not mistaken, I think the capability to effectively destroy an entire country with non-nuclear weapons already exists. So the idea is, MAD as a strategy would still be present. You can maintain a non-nuclear arsenal to enforce MAD. But we would get everybody to agree that the nuclear version of MAD would likely end humanity and therefore a global ban is appropriate. I doubt this will ever happen. But maybe in a post-Putin, more democratic (or subdued) Russia we could get there. Not sure how enforcement would work, but a global inspection organization combined with national intelligence capabilities might be sufficient to detect any significant build up. One can dream I guess.
cmax 5y ago
From an fantasy perspective for modeling incentives? An equally powerful/cost effective weapon that left no radiation damage and no burning city afterwards even if there is still only a crater left. That way you can have mutual destruction without destroying the rest of the world as collateral. It will be a technology replacement. You will not loose any strategic capability, meaning you can make progress without the "timed-collective-action-threshold-conditional-commitment" thing that is never going to happen with the incentive structure as its now. There is no incentive for weapons that can destroy the entire world if the entire world is not aligned, only for weapons that can destroy nations. That said, this line of thinking makes me sick, while at the same time it seems impossible to me without something similar, you have to make them obsolete.

by jasode 5y ago

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.

throwaway_4ever 5y ago
And when you say it hasn't been very long since, you mean that it's literally happening right now. One of Russia's insane excuses is that Ukraine is trying to build nuclear weapons.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  Still sounds a lot less serious than when we invaded Iraq using the lie that they had biological weapons. We caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. We bombed the country to hell indiscriminately.

js8 5y ago

> Now what? We need to talk about it more. With 9/11 (and some American attempts to establish nuclear 1st strike doctrine), it sort of fell off the radar. Noam Chomsky always mentions nuclear weapons as the biggest threat to humankind, along with global warming. We need to emphasize the uselessness/cost of nuclear weapons for rational/moral actors and the risk of irrational actors taking control. The two largest nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) have been steadily decreasing over past 30 years, but it could happen faster.

qqqwerty 5y ago

If I am not mistaken, I think the capability to effectively destroy an entire country with non-nuclear weapons already exists. So the idea is, MAD as a strategy would still be present. You can maintain a non-nuclear arsenal to enforce MAD. But we would get everybody to agree that the nuclear version of MAD would likely end humanity and therefore a global ban is appropriate. I doubt this will ever happen. But maybe in a post-Putin, more democratic (or subdued) Russia we could get there. Not sure how enforcement would work, but a global inspection organization combined with national intelligence capabilities might be sufficient to detect any significant build up. One can dream I guess.

cmax 5y ago

From an fantasy perspective for modeling incentives? An equally powerful/cost effective weapon that left no radiation damage and no burning city afterwards even if there is still only a crater left. That way you can have mutual destruction without destroying the rest of the world as collateral. It will be a technology replacement. You will not loose any strategic capability, meaning you can make progress without the "timed-collective-action-threshold-conditional-commitment" thing that is never going to happen with the incentive structure as its now. There is no incentive for weapons that can destroy the entire world if the entire world is not aligned, only for weapons that can destroy nations. That said, this line of thinking makes me sick, while at the same time it seems impossible to me without something similar, you have to make them obsolete.