3 ms·

What about the nation state actors that don't sign on to the pledge? Ukraine would be at a significant disadvantage if they were playing by these hypothetical r

What about the nation state actors that don't sign on to the pledge? Ukraine would be at a significant disadvantage if they were playing by these hypothetical rules but Russia didn't.

asdff 4y ago
Same thing that happens when nation state actors decide to refine uranium to weapons grade: sanctions that kill the economy. These actually work pretty well when they are targeted at the oligarchy of a given nation state. This puts pressure on the state leaders who exist to serve the oligarchy to work to lift sanctions. The oligarch doesn't care about anything unless it makes them money, and by forcing them to lose money you shift incentives accordingly.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Same thing that happens when nation state actors decide to refine uranium to weapons grade: sanctions that kill the economy. You can't disarm America, Russia or China's nuclear weapons like that. The example of nuclear weapons only shows that cat like this won't go back in bags. The only way you'll get countries like this to disarm and renounce a class of weapons is if those weapons were never very good in the first place (e.g. chemical weapons) or were rendered obsolete by new sorts of weapons (battleships.)
- marshray 4y ago
  It's very difficult, but still much easier to inspect processing facilities for illegal enrichment than it would be to prevent manufacturing of military drones. Drones are increasingly used by civilians, and we see in Ukraine that consumer drones are being employed in military operations with little more than a software upgrade.
ahelwer 4y ago
Arms control diplomacy has never managed to get everyone on board with full ratification all at once. Doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference, especially as the years go on. Using widely-banned weapons in a conflict has more-severe diplomatic repercussions than invasion by conventional means.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Up to a point. As far as nukes go, the main reason for having one is as a deterrent to conventional attacks. Sure, you can try to starve people out, but sanctions regimes often run out of moral legitimacy before their targets do. And countries like Iran or North Korea that are near to or in possession of a nuclear capability are not going to cast it away. Gaddafi did that and look how poorly it turned out for him.

What about the nation state actors that don't sign on to the pledge? Ukraine would be at a significant disadvantage if they were playing by these hypothetical rules but Russia didn't.

asdff 4y ago

Same thing that happens when nation state actors decide to refine uranium to weapons grade: sanctions that kill the economy. These actually work pretty well when they are targeted at the oligarchy of a given nation state. This puts pressure on the state leaders who exist to serve the oligarchy to work to lift sanctions. The oligarch doesn't care about anything unless it makes them money, and by forcing them to lose money you shift incentives accordingly.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Same thing that happens when nation state actors decide to refine uranium to weapons grade: sanctions that kill the economy. You can't disarm America, Russia or China's nuclear weapons like that. The example of nuclear weapons only shows that cat like this won't go back in bags. The only way you'll get countries like this to disarm and renounce a class of weapons is if those weapons were never very good in the first place (e.g. chemical weapons) or were rendered obsolete by new sorts of weapons (battleships.)
marshray 4y ago
It's very difficult, but still much easier to inspect processing facilities for illegal enrichment than it would be to prevent manufacturing of military drones. Drones are increasingly used by civilians, and we see in Ukraine that consumer drones are being employed in military operations with little more than a software upgrade.

ahelwer 4y ago

Arms control diplomacy has never managed to get everyone on board with full ratification all at once. Doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference, especially as the years go on. Using widely-banned weapons in a conflict has more-severe diplomatic repercussions than invasion by conventional means.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Up to a point. As far as nukes go, the main reason for having one is as a deterrent to conventional attacks. Sure, you can try to starve people out, but sanctions regimes often run out of moral legitimacy before their targets do. And countries like Iran or North Korea that are near to or in possession of a nuclear capability are not going to cast it away. Gaddafi did that and look how poorly it turned out for him.