A nuclear question: "Do you feel lucky?"

[Nouvelian]

Why should countries, namely the US and the EU, feel they have the right to tell other nations whether or not they're allowed to develop nuclear arms?

The question is both legal and ethical.

Legal, as the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) covers this, and its signatories, both NWSs (Nuclear Weapons State) and non-NWSs, are oblidged either to give up the weapons in the former case, or ambitions to have the weapons in the latter. The only recognized NWSs, under the treaty, are the PR-China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US.

Significantly, India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed the treaty. Also, North Korea did sign, but eventually withdrew itself, and has since declared itself in possession. Iran is also a signatory.

I reckon the debate in this forum will center mostly on the ethical opinions on possession. Broadly, most could fall into one of three categories:

1. 'Trust us': The world should be content with the status quo, and allow NWSs to retain their nukes, but prevent proliferation, forcefully if necessary.

2. 'No nukes': Proliferation should be discouraged, preferably by the disarmament of NWSs, but also by punishment.

3. 'Yeeeeeee-ha': The 'cowboy' position of everyone having the right to build and possess nukes.

I'm in the 2nd camp. I see the 'Trust us' stance as dangerous and insulting, and the 'cowboy' one as idiotic.

Dangerous, as events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '83 near-miss (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), numerous near-misses on the Indian sub-continent (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) etc. show.

Insulting, as the rationale for deciding who merits the bombs and who doesn't is highly subjective. Recently, Bush effectively welcomed Indian PM Singh and his nation into the club, yet the US, and the EU, are seriously hostile to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Where is the tipping point between the two? Should the distinction be made on democratic grounds, it is an untenable position over time, as any nation can lose its democratic freedoms and become tyrannical.

The 2nd stance also effectively reiterates that of the NNPT. Within it, the debate is as to where the onus lies... with the NWSs or the non-NWSs.

Sadly, the terrible hypocrisy of the NWSs in taking an NNPT line with non-NWSs, yet forsaking their disarmament obligations, will only encourage countries to enter the 'club'.

[FruitandNut]

Nouvelain - I 'agree', anyone should be able to make nukes, however flakey. I am just off to our high security mental institutes to show them how to make them - it is their right after all to protect themselves from WMDs with WMDs. Of course we can rely on everybody's goodwill not to use them aggressively. The more people with nukes, the safer our world will be. Every home should be protected with their own nuke tipped ICBM.

If you are worried about al Qaeda not having a nuke capability, they will soon enough.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Nouvelian]

Wow, one of the more critical tipping points of international affairs, and barely a peep.... guess nobody cares...

[Zenstone]

Why should countries, namely the US and the EU, feel they have the right to tell other nations whether or not they're allowed to develop nuclear arms?

Its rather normal for the weak to be governed by the strong; right by might.

The "legal" aspect of your question must rely on international treaties, which are difficult to enforce without threats of, or acts of, war. Judgement of a treaty governing nuclear weapons, therefore, is pretty much going to be decided by the country with the biggest nukes. Again, right by might.

Morally, the question I'd ask instead is "why should countries, namely the US and EU, feel they have the right to use nuclear weapons?"

[KevinBrowning]

Nouvelian, the balance of nuclear power is very delicate. The superpower, USA, and the former superpower, USSR, both developed an incredible stockpile of nukes. The principle of MAD kept either side from using them.

Although Russia is now basically a non-issue to US security because of a severe economic breakdown last decade, the two countries still basically rule the nuclear roost.

When smaller developing nations start getting their hands on enriched uranium, it makes them nervous. Why? Because often these are countries headed by reckless megalomaniacs who don't care about the restraining MAD principle, or because their arms can be dealt to terrorists with similar globally suicidal tendencies.

In short, a couple superpowers having a huge but roughly equal amount of nukes is much safer than lots of little nations having a few nukes. The reason? Simple psychology and human nature.

[Nouvelian]

As to Zenstone...

''Right by Might'' is something I'd pay to hear a powerful politician proclaim, yet we're gonna have to work on the premise that it is not a defensible position, either diplomatically or in a debating forum. I realise, fully and sadly, that it is how the world has worked for eons, yet if we're to believe that responsive, democratic gov't is on the rise, we're gonna have to work out hold nations and gov'ts accountable as signatories.

As to your posting: "Judgement of a treaty governing nuclear weapons, therefore, is pretty much going to be decided by the country with the biggest nukes". Is the very crux of the matter with WMD of this scale. Once you, as a nation, accumulate a large stockpile, and vary the capacity to deliver it, you are essentially unfukwittable. If nuclear bombs are exchanged in war, it's ''zero-sum''. Neither people will be dead-er.

This follows to KB's point: "In short, a couple superpowers having a huge but roughly equal amount of nukes is much safer than lots of little nations having a few nukes. The reason? Simple psychology and human nature."

Here's the list of NWSs: US, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India.

Pakistan is a good example how and why proliferation occurs. India wanted to be a strong nation, and needed the bomb. Its credentials for world power have been on the rise for a long time. It needed the 'big stick', and worked outside the NPT in getting it. It also was in intermittent war with Pakistan, causing Pakistan to work for the bomb itself. It got it, yet Pakistan is far from as stable as India, and is cause for serious concern. Should Musharraf be toppled by a fringe Islamist party storming to power, the entire region would be on the edge of a very, very deep precipice.

Pakistan got the bomb for survival, India got it for stature, to become one of the few 'superpowers'. This kind of jockeying for power leads to dominos falling, and weapons proliferating.

Anyone having nukes leads to everyone wanting nukes. ''In the hands of the few'' is untenable in the long term.

Furthermore, the very possession of the bomb by any nation is dangerous. False-alerts, panicky politicians and "broken arrows". [To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.]

[FruitandNut]

Nouvelain - Pandora's Box has been opened. Human knowledge, fear, suspicion, ambition, jealousy, macismo, and a lack of wisdom, tolerance and understanding = BIG TROUBLE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE!!!!!

[Nouvelian]

Yes, we're capable of many things, but as MLK said:

[FruitandNut]

The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yes, I look forward to a perfect world as well, but I would question the sanity of our own government doing away with 'our' nukes unilaterally in the present political climate.

[Nouvelian]

Good for quotes, wasn't he....

Anyway, these are the treaty terms: non-proliferation and disarmament.

Disarmament doesn't occur overnight. It is a slow, phased process, allowing nations the assurance of not doing so completly unilaterally.

The recent review conference illustrates the hypocrisy of the accusation levelled by the US and the EU towards Iran. They are keen to stress the non-proliferative element and ignore the disarmament one, yet the issues are one and the same. By explicitly not disarming, they (the 'powerful') are explicitly breaking the terms of the treaty, while Iran explicitly pursues peaceful nuclear energy, allowed under the treaty. Whether or not Iran is pursueing weapons technology is still hearsay, but the logic of the nuclear status quo is that those without should pursue their own as most of those with refuse to relinquish theirs. The blame for this lies at the doorstep of those with the weapons.

There's no halfway. If you're against global dis-armament, you're for global armament.

[Zenstone]

As to Zenstone...

''Right by Might'' is something I'd pay to hear a powerful politician proclaim, yet we're gonna have to work on the premise that it is not a defensible position, either diplomatically or in a debating forum. I realise, fully and sadly, that it is how the world has worked for eons...

Its not my intention to promote "Right by Might." It was the answer to your original question. It is an answer you, apparently, accept:

I realise, fully and sadly, that it is how the world has worked for eons

Glad to be of service.


(BTW, this "yet we're gonna have to work on the premise that it is not a defensible position ... in a debating forum" is not a legitimate argument against said position...especially in a debating forum)

[Snoop]

Lets see - nuclear fuel make nuclear bombs - right? The US has a new energy policy to use more and more nuclear energy sources. Where are we going to put the waste? If this cannot be answered then we may be in for some bad times ahead. The international community has to set a policy - the whole planet is at risk and not just a few countries.

[Meng Bomin]

Nouvelian, you raise some excellent points. MAD and "might makes right" work well in the short term, and helped some nations and empires keep control in the long term. However, with nukes, its a whole different game and I'm not sure that our global structure will allow your option 2. While option 2 is the best option in an ideal world where everyone goes by their word, it is nearly impossible in the real world. A nation without nuclear weapons is at the mercy of those that do have nuclear weapons. So, looking at a prisoners dilemma, the best solution for everyone would be to give up nukes and to prevent others from gaining them (which in itself is quite a task). However, if one nation goes against its word, it alone benefits and everyone else loses. Beyond that, non-proliferation would be even harder to enforce, as no one besides the one nation with nukes would actually be fully against it.

[Nouvelian]

It does boil down to a dilemma between nationalism and humanity. Can nations trust one another, in return for the greatest good? If fundamentally incapable, then there is something fundamentally wrong with nationalism.

I'm no prophet of doom, as the scenarios of nuclear war between NWSs are not far fetched, especially on the Indian subcontinent. These idiots of the highest order care not for humanity, and anticipate death in a blaze of ''zero-sum'' glory:

..."Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes was bragging: "India can take a nuclear hit and hit back," while Pakistan's General Mirza Aslam Beg announced: "We can make a first strike, a second strike and even a third. Look - you can die crossing the street, or you can die in a nuclear war. You've got to die some day anyway"... source: Johann Hari (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

How chilling is that? They're countenancing M.A.D. as if it weren't. Global nuclear winter is no walk in the park. Our ecosystem goes from a relatively healthy heartbeat to a quasi-flatline for years, and most of us perish... ah well... ''you've got to die some day anyway''

YOU PEOPLE on the fence between the two options need to figure it out, and if reason prevails upon you, we can all hold hands, sing some Lennon, and let our leaders know we mean: ''No!''

[Meng Bomin]

Can nations trust one another, in return for the greatest good?
Ususally not. Nations (more precisely their governments) exist to promote their own interests. Thus, if they see something that would allow them to gain an upperhand over other nations, then they will most likely take it. This is a prisoner's dilemma problem. For those of you who do not know what the prisoner's dilemma is, here's an overview:

Two men have been caught in connection with a particular crime. They are isolated from each other and both are given the option of testifying against the other. They are told the consequences of testifying vs not testifying:

If both prisoners testify, they will each spend 6 months in prison. If both refuse, they will each spend 6 years in prison. If prisoner 1 testifies but prisoner 2 refuses, prisoner 1 will go free and prisoner 2 will spend 10 years in prison and vice versa.
In this situation, it is most likely that the prisoners will both testify, because the options for testifying seem better. You either spend no time in prison or six months. If you don't testify, you will spend either six months in prison or ten years. They will also figure that since the other sees this too, he will probably choose to testify, which leaves them with 10 years in prison if they don't. Thus, both are most likely to testify. Of course, this is the option that is the worst overall.

This applies to the global scene in that each nation can choose to get rid of their nukes or not. If everyone gets rid of their nukes, we have the best option: no nuclear weapons anywhere and none that will fall into the wrong hands. However, if no one disarms, we maintain the status quo, with the eventuality that a rogue nation or terrorists are likely to get their hands on the technology. If a nation disarms but any of them don't, the disarmed nations are at the mercy of those with nukes. By the same logic, nations will choose not to fully disarm, though they may partially disarm if they have an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.

[Ibelsd]

The concept of nuclear proliferation has been a sticky concept since the 1950's. First, the realization that nukes exist must be accepted. We can't wish them away. The reality is that NPT's don't prevent any nation from creating a nuke program (North Korea & Iran). So, this immediately should remove any call for complete disarmament by any nation serious about maintaining its sovereignty. At best, a non-nuclear nation would have to rely on the protection of some other nuclear-weilding nation. Such protection may be practical for smaller countries that don't have the economy for their own program. It is also beneficial for larger countries to prevent unlimited proliferation. It is a lot easier to plan for a counterstrike against 2 or 3 countries than it is to plan against 40 or 50 scenarios. As such NPT's work better than most people give them credit. Of course, nations that feel isolated and outside of the protective shield will work to create their own programs. That is actually beneficial to established nuclear powers since it means resources must be placed into those programs rather than conventional programs. In a war, it is the conventional forces which will be called upon and truly more important as an application. Game theory makes nuclear war a non-option for any nuclear upstart against a true nuclear power. Consider that even if Korea had 10 nuclear missles which could reach the U.S., perhaps only 1 or 2 would actually get to target. Considerable damage, but the U.S. is still very much alive. In retaliation, the U.S. may strike with 100 or more missiles laying the entire country to waste. Not a winning proposition if you are Korea. Hence, we refer to such programs as largely symbolic. We also see them as beneficial since it means they are building less tanks, planes, and conentional bombs. Our policy since the 60's has been one of containment. Keep nukes in as few places as possible and keep them from becoming too numerous in any single locale. Foster Dulles once proposed unlimited nuclear proliferation. Mathematically, he was probably correct in his assumption that safety in such a world would increase. Unfortunately, the consquences of error would be enormous. The trade-off is a mathemtically less safe world, but with consequences far less dire.

[Nouvelian]

Neverending:

The prisoner's dilemma is appropriate, but your analysis falls short of the mark: "However, if no one disarms, we maintain the status quo, with the eventuality that a rogue nation or terrorists are likely to get their hands on the technology."

Three 'rogue nations' already have nukes: Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan, Israel is a racist, UNSC-resolution-flouting oppressor, N.K. a famished tyranny, and Pakistan a military dictatorship. Israel also has a pre-emptive strike policy, and is itching to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, possibly with 'little' nukes, while Pakistan stands on the brink of revolution, and on/off war with India. Kim Il Sung is probably feeling like a big rat in a small cage. Futhermore, Russia is far from a stable nation. The current reality can honestly be described as nightmarish.

The tragedy is that these 8 NWSs are to be trusted as custodians of apocalypse. The NPT was designed to reduce the number to 0, and maintain it. As the number stands only at 8, concerted action towards this end is fully possilbe. Pessimism and cynicism, on the part of citizens and governments, prevents what would seem utopic, but in reality is sensible, from being acheived.

Ibelsd:

"The reality is that NPT's don't prevent any nation from creating a nuke program (North Korea & Iran)." The NNPT is only a piece of paper. Enforcement relies upon nations, and the UN, to... well... enforce it. As NWSs have failed to dis-arm, lack of enforcement is in the eye of the beholder. The onus lies on NWSs to overtly dis-arm, otherwise the non-NWSs are essentially being exhorted to develop their own nuclear capacity. There can be no middle ground between armament and disarmament. In the long run (which is what we, humanity, are in for) we all either arm, or disarm. Also, your 'America lives on' scenario doesn't survive long term either. We either trust one another (as nations) with technology not to build nukes, or we all build them, and await nuclear winter.

[Meng Bomin]

Three 'rogue nations' already have nukes: Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan, Israel is a racist, UNSC-resolution-flouting oppressor, N.K. a famished tyranny, and Pakistan a military dictatorship.
Yes, you could consider them to be rogue nations, especially NK. However, I find it highly unlikely that any of them would attack because even though their governments seem unstable, they still have a desire for self-presevation, something a true rogue nation or a terrorist group would not have.

[Ibelsd]

"The reality is that NPT's don't prevent any nation from creating a nuke program (North Korea & Iran)." The NNPT is only a piece of paper. Enforcement relies upon nations, and the UN, to... well... enforce it.
What exactly gives the U.N. any authority to enforce anything? Furthermore, what should lead us to any amount of confidence that the U.N. is capable of handling such authority? Rather, enforcement relies upon nations. A nation is its sole source of protection. Nations may choose to work together. Such alliances can be nothing more than temporary.



As NWSs have failed to dis-arm, lack of enforcement is in the eye of the beholder. The onus lies on NWSs to overtly dis-arm, otherwise the non-NWSs are essentially being exhorted to develop their own nuclear capacity.
Why does the onus lie on NWSs? You have made a claim. What is your support? Disarmament is costly and lowers the security of the states's involved. Disarmament helps smaller states since they gain in power in relationship to the NWS's as disarmamenet occurs. It would seem the onus lies on smaller states abandoning attempts to gain nuclear technology, not the other way around.



There can be no middle ground between armament and disarmament. In the long run (which is what we, humanity, are in for) we all either arm, or disarm. Also, your 'America lives on' scenario doesn't survive long term either. We either trust one another (as nations) with technology not to build nukes, or we all build them, and await nuclear winter.
Again, this is a claim which is not supported. My America lives on scenario described a particular situation. It did not apply to all situations. You are not addressing the argument. Nations do not trust one another. That is why militaries exist, including nukes. Nations often stand for differing values and often those values cause nations to have conflict. In Israel's case, they are surrounded by several states which do not even recognize Israel's right to exist. Why should Israel trust them and dismantle their nuclear arsenal? So those countries can get together and invade... again? Finally, mathematics tells us that we have little to fear of one nation using nukes against another nation with nukes. Our greatest fear comes from a non-nation using nukes. This is something not addressed by the NNPT. Nor can it be. As such, disarming makes even less sense strategically.

Hyperbole probably works well at the Green Party rallys. It has very little application in the real world.

[Nouvelian]

Neverending:

Remember Louis XIV's words: 'L'etat, c'est moi!' (I am the state), which apply equally, if not more, to Musharraf and Kim Jong Il (K. Il Sung was his predecessor), as they are military dictators.

Your assumption that NWSs would never deploy the bomb against other NWSs probably wouldn't hold true in the event that Kim Jong Il thought that the U.S., S.K. or Japan threatened invasion.

The current antagonistic U.S. policy towards Kim Jong Il is oxymoronic. One the one hand, the White House talks up regime change, and on the other, demands dis-armament. You can easily imagine the tyrant squashed between a rock and a hard place. An irony of the situation is that North Korean artillery perched along the DMZ, above Seoul, is capable dropping 25,000 shells per hour onto the capital (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which is why they're moving the government southwards. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) The artillery keeps the South in check, while the nukes discourage invading forces.

In conclusion, to beleive that a NWS is incapable of bombing another is wishful thinking.

As to Ibelsd:

The UN has a large mandate, here are two major aspects:

1. To pass resolutions on both the behaviour of nations, and the deployment of troops.
2. To monitor the acquiescence of nations with those resolutions.

The proof, as ever, is in the pudding. The UN does have contingents of ''Blue Helmets'', donated by member states, and has loads of skilled international monitors. Also, the UN can call upon states to legitimately enforce military resolutions themselves. Largely, the physical act of dispatching of the troops, and protecting the monitors, is up to member states.

The inconsistency of member states enforcing resolutions, coupled with the hamstringing of resolutions by veto-wielding members of the Security Council, dampens confidence in the UN. Yet, I believe that states are very young things... 200 odd years at most, and hopefully shall mature in parallel with democratization. Maturity should bring the realization by citizens and governments that the lines that divide citizen from citizen, and government from government, are arbitrary, while the common good and the common bad know no border.

As to why the current onus lies on NWSs, in the long term, 'Trust Us' rings false. Why should a nation such as Iran trust the U.S. or the E.U.? Regime change in Iran is the oft-stated ambition of powerful neo-cons. North Korea exemplifies the need of nations to develop nukes to dissuade regime changers.

You wrote: "It would seem the onus lies on smaller states abandoning attempts to gain nuclear technology, not the other way around," yet you also claimed that: "Nations do not trust one another." The former is precluded by the latter. The hypocrisy of NWSs, in remaining armed, contrarily to the NNPT, exhorts non-NWSs to arm.

Now, should the playing field be levelled by NWSs disarming, would enforcement of the NNPT prevent the development of nukes? If international monitors weren't given full, unfettered access to nuclear facilities, conventional military action, with international legitimacy, would destroy development.

I believe the nuclear question is a T-junction in the road. Either we all go one way or the other. The middle ground is untenable, as it would logically lead, eventually, down the wrong path, to the total armament scenario.

PS As to Israel's recognition, in 1982, the recently deceased King Fahd of Saudi Arabia said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "...Arab countries unanimously agreed for the first time on a plan for a peaceful settlement for the conflict including the recognition of Israel..." also, Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002 "called for total Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands according to UN resolutions in return for total Arab recognition of Israel."

[FruitandNut]

And now it looks as though Iran is turning its back on negotiations with the EU over holding back on weapons grade nuke production. Looks like some of our standby nukes will be retargetted in the near future. Another MAD stand off in the offing, only this time it is likely to be multi-sided and a heck of a lot flakier! :devil: :devil: :devil:

[Ibelsd]

The UN has a large mandate, here are two major aspects:

1. To pass resolutions on both the behaviour of nations, and the deployment of troops.
2. To monitor the acquiescence of nations with those resolutions.
From where does this mandate come from? Are U.N. officials elected? By whom? This is a puppet organization which has no "mandate". It is a body which runs at the convenience of the states which preside over it.



The proof, as ever, is in the pudding. The UN does have contingents of ''Blue Helmets'', donated by member states, and has loads of skilled international monitors. Also, the UN can call upon states to legitimately enforce military resolutions themselves. Largely, the physical act of dispatching of the troops, and protecting the monitors, is up to member states.
This is not proof of a mandate. Just as legalized slavery was not proof of moral behavior. The U.N. can make requests. It has no authority nor mandate to enforce those requests other than to utilize the force of whichever members are willing to engage a certain cause. Your idea of skilled international monitors is laughable. And the contingent of blue helmets have recently been accused of causing as much harm as they were supposed to prevent. There is nothing inherently legitimate about the U.N.



The inconsistency of member states enforcing resolutions, coupled with the hamstringing of resolutions by veto-wielding members of the Security Council, dampens confidence in the UN. Yet, I believe that states are very young things... 200 odd years at most, and hopefully shall mature in parallel with democratization. Maturity should bring the realization by citizens and governments that the lines that divide citizen from citizen, and government from government, are arbitrary, while the common good and the common bad know no border.
The states are very young things? Huh? Russia, France, and England have been around for a thousand years or more. What the hell are you talking about? States are inconsistent because they aren't about to uphold U.N. resolutions which betray their own interests. This is why the U.N. is so ineffective.



As to why the current onus lies on NWSs, in the long term, 'Trust Us' rings false. Why should a nation such as Iran trust the U.S. or the E.U.? Regime change in Iran is the oft-stated ambition of powerful neo-cons. North Korea exemplifies the need of nations to develop nukes to dissuade regime changers.
Name me a leader who has used "trust us" as the basis of foreign policy. This is a straw man. As such, your entire argument here is irrelevant.



You wrote: "It would seem the onus lies on smaller states abandoning attempts to gain nuclear technology, not the other way around," yet you also claimed that: "Nations do not trust one another." The former is precluded by the latter. The hypocrisy of NWSs, in remaining armed, contrarily to the NNPT, exhorts non-NWSs to arm.
NNPT does not prevent any nation from making nukes. Disarming leads one to be susceptible to any nation that does not wish to follow the NNPT. As such, it is a foolish choice to disarm. If small states want large states to disarm, it is up to them to convince the large states it is in their best interests to do so. As I noted earlier, the reality is that disarmament benefits small states much more than large states.



Now, should the playing field be levelled by NWSs disarming, would enforcement of the NNPT prevent the development of nukes? If international monitors weren't given full, unfettered access to nuclear facilities, conventional military action, with international legitimacy, would destroy development.
Should I start laughing? Why would any large state wish for a level playing field, particularly a state which has a large advantage over other states? Furthermore, why would an influential state wish to defer its influence to a world governing body? Furthermore how would a world governing body have any authority over democratic nations when the governing body's members are not elected?



I believe the nuclear question is a T-junction in the road. Either we all go one way or the other. The middle ground is untenable, as it would logically lead, eventually, down the wrong path, to the total armament scenario.
Well, since we can not prevent any single nation from gaining nukes, you are suggesting we should just let everyone have nukes since everyone will get them anyhow. This is a bit of an extremist position. You have provided no logical rationale for this position. You have simply made a claim and a slippery slope fallacy along the way.



PS As to Israel's recognition, in 1982, the recently deceased King Fahd of Saudi Arabia said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "...Arab countries unanimously agreed for the first time on a plan for a peaceful settlement for the conflict including the recognition of Israel..." also, Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002 "called for total Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands according to UN resolutions in return for total Arab recognition of Israel."
One of the entire bunch. How excellent. I am sure Israel feels it can rest easy now. The truth is that the U.N. has yet to condemn suicicde bombers or label them as terrorists. The truth is that the U.N. has been quick to condemn Israel for defending itself. Abdullah called for a total withdrawl of Arab lands that Israel claimed when it beat off a massive Arab attack. The U.N. can make resolutions all it wants. It is an illegitimate governing body with no influence.

[FruitandNut]

Ibby - A lot of politicians use their body language to try to put across the message of 'trust us'.

You obviously don't really listen to political discussions, they are full of trying to put across the message of 'my party is the one to trust' AND attempting to put forward 'arguments' why the voter should not trust the other. - This is all a precursor to getting stuck into any foreign policy.

[KevinBrowning]

YOU PEOPLE on the fence between the two options need to figure it out, and if reason prevails upon you, we can all hold hands, sing some Lennon, and let our leaders know we mean: ''No!''

You can hold hands and sing all you want, and it will not change a single thing about the nuclear situation. The bottom line is that nations are going to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

The U.S. can keep its weapons, and remain safe and powerful, or get rid of them, and become endangered and weak. It's not a hard choice.

[Nouvelian]

First off, KevBrownin: that Lennon bit was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it. I sometimes think to myself peace ought be given a chance, but I don't protest that way, nor do I chant "Marg-bar Amreeka!" (what the folks in Tehran chant). Otherwise, "you will not change a single thing" depends on whethe pressure is exerted onto leaders through both logic and democracy. A logic that ends with total nuclear armament, a logic that you, (" nations are going to continue to develop nuclear weapons") apparently agree with, is a logic that I hope would encourage disarmament.

As to: "The U.S. can keep its weapons, and remain safe and powerful..." You (as a nation) are not powerful when nuclear weapons proliferate, as can be seen by North Korean obduracy, and you certainly aren't safe.

As to Ibelsd, this is part of the Charter of the UN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , of which all five original NWSs are ratified signatories, as they are to the NNPT:

"We The Peoples Of The United Nations Determined... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained."

The Secretary General is elected by the General Assembly, populated by representatives from each member state. There are democratic processes for the election of the other posts whereby states represent their peoples as voters. The representation in the UN is indirectly elected by electorates of nations across the world (and, sadly, no small number of non-democratic states). It is akin to the indirect election of judges in the US system. There is a lot wrong with the organization of the UN, but that does not preclude it from being useful, or from being reformed.

Under the logic of the Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression is the fundamental war crime. The reason the US and UK labored long and hard to legitimize the invasion of Iraq with a UNSC resolution is that no other body carries anything approaching the legitimacy of the UN as a deliberative body that determines the greatest collective will, and if the UNSC agreed that 'invasion' was in the larger interests of peace and security, then it wouldn't have been a war of aggression.

The proof in the pudding is not with regard to the UN having a universal mandate, but the 'proof' of its effectiveness is in the 'pudding' of its actions, and inactions, worldwide.

The 'inherent' legitimacy of the UN is proportional to the willingness of its member states to enforce its resolutions. The above-quoted Charter is apropos.

Anyway, this is not a discussion about the UN, or about the Iraq war, we can have that elsewhere. This is a discussion about nuclear proliferation.

"Russia, France and Britain have been around for more than a thousand years?" Really? Where'd you find that tid-bit? Please don't ask what the hell I'm talking about when you're clearly making sh*t up.

Britain is still a monarchy populated by subjects, not citizens. It has gradually become more democratic since the electorate (which elects parliament) was expanded past the gentry in the Great Reform Act of 1838.

France can only be said to have become a democratic state since the revolution of 1789, and even then it oscillated through the 19th century between monarchism and republicanism.

Russia has been tzarist and soviet before 1989. Hardly a millenium.

Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) has it that:
"The origins of nations are disputed, and these disputes form a major issue in the theory of nationalism. There are some biological theories of its origin, which see humans as territorial animals and the nation as a territory in this sense. Most theorists reject this as simplistic, and treat nations as a relatively late human social grouping. The most widely quoted theories place their origin in the late 18th and 19th century, although this dating is very disputed. Certainly the identification with a "nation" was promoted by early romantic nationalism at that time, usually in opposition to multi-ethnic (and autocratic) empires."

Eat your words.

When I started this thread, I put forward three position that one could be part of. The first was called 'Trust Us' as it was a position where the powerful nations were to be trusted with the nukes, as the non-NWSs had to live with it.

You wrote, ''Nations do not trust one another.'' It is very hard for one to trust another, when the relationship, in terms of power to destroy, is so asymmetric. That is why the continued possession of nukes by NWSs with no moves to dismantle prompts their proliferation. Either we all trust one another with bombs, or we all trust one another not to have bombs. The middle ground of ''Trust us to have the bomb while you don't'' is completly untenable, in the long run.

To boil it all down, some say that NWSs disarming is a fools errand, as it leaves you defenseless. I retort that not disarming exhorts non-NWSs to arm themselves, and eventually leads to nuclear war. I think this issue, like global warming, is a litmus test of the maturity of humanity, and we're probably going to fail.

[Ibelsd]

As to Ibelsd, this is part of the Charter of the UN (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , of which all five original NWSs are ratified signatories, as they are to the NNPT:

"We The Peoples Of The United Nations Determined... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained."
Thanks for avoiding the part about how the U.N. has legitamcy over citizens of democratic states since U.N. members aren't elected. The U.N. is a tool. Period. As long as it is a tool which appears useful, states will keep the U.N. around.



The Secretary General is elected by the General Assembly, populated by representatives from each member state. There are democratic processes for the election of the other posts whereby states represent their peoples as voters. The representation in the UN is indirectly elected by electorates of nations across the world (and, sadly, no small number of non-democratic states). It is akin to the indirect election of judges in the US system. There is a lot wrong with the organization of the UN, but that does not preclude it from being useful, or from being reformed.
Judges don't declare war. Judges don't make legislation. Your comparison is a bit flawed.



The proof in the pudding is not with regard to the UN having a universal mandate, but the 'proof' of its effectiveness is in the 'pudding' of its actions, and inactions, worldwide.

Since the U.N. has been largely ineffective in doing anything, I guess I agree with this to some degree. It has been completely ineffective in dealing with Islamic terrorism, genocide in Africa, or even performing relief aid in Indonesia.



The 'inherent' legitimacy of the UN is proportional to the willingness of its member states to enforce its resolutions. The above-quoted Charter is apropos.
Member states will only enforce resolutions which benefit those states.



"Russia, France and Britain have been around for more than a thousand years?" Really? Where'd you find that tid-bit? Please don't ask what the hell I'm talking about when you're clearly making sh*t up.
Making sh*t up?
All from Wikipedia.
The territory of England has been politically united since the tenth century.
The first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', adopted Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century
Charlemagne's descendants ruled France until 987,



Britain is still a monarchy populated by subjects, not citizens. It has gradually become more democratic since the electorate (which elects parliament) was expanded past the gentry in the Great Reform Act of 1838.

France can only be said to have become a democratic state since the revolution of 1789, and even then it oscillated through the 19th century between monarchism and republicanism.

Russia has been tzarist and soviet before 1989. Hardly a millenium.
You never argued that they existed as democratic states for only a short time. You said they were young states.



When I started this thread, I put forward three position that one could be part of. The first was called 'Trust Us' as it was a position where the powerful nations were to be trusted with the nukes, as the non-NWSs had to live with it.

You wrote, ''Nations do not trust one another.'' It is very hard for one to trust another, when the relationship, in terms of power to destroy, is so asymmetric. That is why the continued possession of nukes by NWSs with no moves to dismantle prompts their proliferation. Either we all trust one another with bombs, or we all trust one another not to have bombs. The middle ground of ''Trust us to have the bomb while you don't'' is completly untenable, in the long run.
Power is always asymmetric. The question is why you would expect states in power to abdicate such power. Sounds like a pipe dream.



To boil it all down, some say that NWSs disarming is a fools errand, as it leaves you defenseless. I retort that not disarming exhorts non-NWSs to arm themselves, and eventually leads to nuclear war. I think this issue, like global warming, is a litmus test of the maturity of humanity, and we're probably going to fail.
You have provided a slippery slope argument at best. Weak.

[Nouvelian]

Ibelsd,

With regard to the UN, we can debate that elsewhere. To note, I provided the analogy of judge appointment to color how the UN bureaucracy is elected by member states, which are accountable to their citizens, not to claim that ''judges declare war''.

I did conflate the terms of nations and states when I wrote: "...Yet, I believe that states are very young things... 200 odd years at most, and hopefully shall mature in parallel with democratization.", yet the context was evidently with regard to modern democracies. The modern nation states have only had 200-odd years of experience, at best, with democracy, and 60-odd years, at best, with nuclear bombs. My earnest hope is that further democratization will mature both the nations and the citizens, and they will realize that there exist common goods, and common bads, that require a universal coalition of mutual trust and effort to address. Call it a 'pipe dream' if you want, my 'dream' is that we avert disaster.

As you said, proliferation is a ''slippery slope'', leading, over both time and development of technology, inexorably towards complete proliferation, that is to say, universal possession of powerful nuclear devices. We mustn't pretend that the tragedy of nuclear war awaits us only when we hit the nadir of universal possession, as there already have been two apparent incidents where the world came frighteningly close to all out nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the Stanislav Petrov blink (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

In summary:
I have claimed that possession of nukes by any nations exhorts all other nations to develop them. As the number of nations in possession increases, the number of nations attempting to possess them will increase proportionately. Eventually, this scenario leads, sooner or later, through purposeful war or accidental mis-hap, to cataclysm.

If you believe that logic to be untrue, please refute it. If you agree with it, yet still would rather have universal possession than universal dis-armament, you leave me speechless. If you're cynical about the possibility of all nations accomplishing dis-armament, then ask yourself which nations have undermined their signatures of the NNPT.

[Nouvelian]

Here's a useful breakdown of the status quo:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As ever, it complicates matters with detail, yet at the heart lies the 'bargain':

"...the NPT provided a core bargain that offered something to everyone: non-nuclear member states agreed to foreswear nuclear weapons (and accept intrusive international verification), while nuclear-armed states agreed to foreswear nuclear threats against non-nuclear states, provide access to peaceful nuclear energy technologies and eventually to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals..."

[Ibelsd]

There is huge logical flaw in your argument (at least one). Let's suppose all countries eliminate all nukes. Fine, they are gone. The world can now live in a a world where wars will be fought by strict conventional means. Until 5,10, or 15 years go by and some little nation develops a new nuke program. Then the whole thing start over again. The technology exists. You cannot prevent states from using it. All it takes is one to start and everyone else must join in. So, disarming isn't progress. It is just hiding one's head in the sand. That is why the policy of today, de facto, is focused on containment and limited disarmament.

[Nouvelian]

''The policy of today,'' of containment, has proven itself ineffective. Nations are arming themselves with nukes. Containment is more of a fantasy than universal disarmament, because the latter takes a balanced, acceptable diplomatic position that can justify a strong IAEA replete with big carrots and bigger sticks, while the former is a hypocrisy that encourages proliferation.

[Ibelsd]

''The policy of today,'' of containment, has proven itself ineffective. Nations are arming themselves with nukes. Containment is more of a fantasy than universal disarmament, because the latter takes a balanced, acceptable diplomatic position that can justify a strong IAEA replete with big carrots and bigger sticks, while the former is a hypocrisy that encourages proliferation.

Containment is a failure... ok. So, how many nuclear wars have there been recently? I don't really think you can call something a failure which has achieved its primary aim. As such, containment is very much a reality. You are now talking in complete circles. As we have noted, complete disarmament would only lead to some single nation gaining nukes and starting an entirely new arms race with an entirely new containment policy. If there is a fantasy being proposed, it is that of universal disarmament.

[Nouvelian]

Containment is the diplomatic policy of preventing the acquisition of nuclear technology by nonNWSs. Four nations, one a signatory of the NNPT, albeit withdrawn, three not, have developed nuclear weapons. That is nuclear weapons un-contained, ergo, Containment is a failure. ''Why nuclear containment is breaking down (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" - a pay piece of analysis in the FT, but the first two paragraphs echo my sentiments.

Prolifertion, in all likelihood, will lead to further nuclear conflicts. The greater the proliferation, the greater the likelihood. In the long term (which is what we're 'in for', as a species), it is simply unsustainable.

Please stop with the pathetic 'you are now talking in complete circles' rhetoric. It's patronizing and adds nothing to the debate. You might think yourself as 'winning' this debate. I certainly dont. I've had enough fun trying to beat this into your cranium, and unless we get a rational 3rd opinion, I will happily give you the last word, should you want it.

[Ibelsd]

Containment is the diplomatic policy of preventing the acquisition of nuclear technology by nonNWSs. Four nations, one a signatory of the NNPT, albeit withdrawn, three not, have developed nuclear weapons. That is nuclear weapons un-contained, ergo, Containment is a failure. ''Why nuclear containment is breaking down (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" - a pay piece of analysis in the FT, but the first two paragraphs echo my sentiments.

Prolifertion, in all likelihood, will lead to further nuclear conflicts. The greater the proliferation, the greater the likelihood. In the long term (which is what we're 'in for', as a species), it is simply unsustainable.

Please stop with the pathetic 'you are now talking in complete circles' rhetoric. It's patronizing and adds nothing to the debate. You might think yourself as 'winning' this debate. I certainly dont. I've had enough fun trying to beat this into your cranium, and unless we get a rational 3rd opinion, I will happily give you the last word, should you want it.

Containment is a tactic used to limit the number of new nuclear states in order to prevent a nucear war. So, while containment has not been 100% effective in keeping new states from gaining nukes, it has been 100% effective in preventing a nuclear war. As such, it is a bit rash and premature to call the policy of containment, a failure.

Well, since your entire argument is based on a slippery slope fallacy, it would be difficult to conclude you have done anything but lose this debate.

[FruitandNut]

Ibby - Now 'Pandora's Box' of nuke know how has been opened, it is inevitable that sooner or later it will fall into the hands of 'flakey types', its just a matter of time. Indeed, it is quite remarkable that the policy of 'containment' has worked for so long, all things considered. Perhaps the biggest contributer to nuke control went when the Warsaw Pact was pulled down along with the Berlin Wall - and the 'good old days' of NATO vs Warsaw Pact and MAD security!

[Meng Bomin]

Prolifertion, in all likelihood, will lead to further nuclear conflicts. The greater the proliferation, the greater the likelihood. In the long term (which is what we're 'in for', as a species), it is simply unsustainable.
The problem is that we can't simply make the knowledge cease to exist. We already know the methods of making the bombs and short of killing all scientists and forcing everyone to live in caves, you are not going to be able to change that. As well, the material exists, you would have to excessively mine the Earth for Uranium and ship it all into space to prevent another bomb from being made. Then you can come back to the prisoners dilemma that nations face. Because of it, no nation is going to back down completely. Some nations, such as the US and Russia, which have more nukes than will ever help them with defense, may choose to dismantle some or even most, but never all. While it would be nice to be able to do away with human instinct and erase all knowledge of the bomb and rid the earth of the materials, such a project simply isn't feasible. So, we are forced to live with the next best thing: containment. While it's not perfect, there has not been a nuclear weapon used in combat since Nagasaki, which occured before nuclear weapons existed outside the US.

[Nouvelian]

Neverending, the logic still doesn't fail. We can be very, very thankful that Petrov didn't destroy the world, and that Kennedy and Khrushkev were reasonable men, and that Kissinger steadied Nixon's hand in Vietnam, as the crazy Californian wanted to nuke Hanoi. Can we continue to be blessed by luck, or does a small probability, risked many times, give way to inevitability. The logic of eventual nuclear conflict in a nuclear-weaponed world is probabilistically inrefutable.

As to the sustainability to universal disarmament, the knowledge of how to make nuclear device doesn't equate with the technology to produce one. The IAEA is tasked to monitor facilities where uranium and plutonium are processed, and, according to their scientists, are capable of verifiably accounting for all fuel. The willingness of states to acquiesce to IAEA investigation is a barometer of the trust possible with universal disarmament.

Right now, as the logic goes, Iran has every ethical reason (but no legal right, under the NNPT) towards building a nuclear weapon capacity. If Zionist State of Israel is allowed the devices, why not then the Islamic Republic of Iran? On, a democratic scale, Iran places echelons above Israel, as the latter unjustifiably disenfranchises millions, both through its racist policies towards non-Jews and its incarceration of millions in the Occupied territories. Also, to decry Iran as terrorist-supporting for their backing of Hezbollah is myopic and hypocritical. Justice is largely based on equality, which can be considered synonymous with reciprocity. Should some have nukes, all are permitted them, in the eyes of justice.

[FruitandNut]

If justice is based on equality, then perhaps you might tell that to Shar'ia Courts.

[Nouvelian]

I'm by no means excusing repression in any state, be it Iran or otherwise. I'm not very familiar with sharia law, but I understand that it is the interpretation by Muslims, usually scholars or clerics, of the Koran of Allah's will/law, and has been used in many instances to brutally punish those deemed to have broken from proper observance.

If we, here, are to have a 'just' treatment of the ethics of nuclear proliferation, we must be 'just' in equating the right of possession between Israel and Iran. Their possession of nuclear weapons is equally justifiable, according to the logic of proliferation, from my perspective.

I believe the following scenario to be 'just': that measures will be put in place whereby Iran agrees not to enrich uranium when and if NWSs embrace universal disarmament.

[FruitandNut]

It is also used to discriminate between Sunni and Shiites - Muslims and Others - and Men and Women.

[Ibelsd]

Ibby - Now 'Pandora's Box' of nuke know how has been opened, it is inevitable that sooner or later it will fall into the hands of 'flakey types', its just a matter of time. Indeed, it is quite remarkable that the policy of 'containment' has worked for so long, all things considered. Perhaps the biggest contributer to nuke control went when the Warsaw Pact was pulled down along with the Berlin Wall - and the 'good old days' of NATO vs Warsaw Pact and MAD security!

Mathematically, the odds of a conflict, when nukes are involved, plummet. This is simple game theory. So, it is not surprising at all. Certainly, the cold war provided a bit of comfort in always knowing the opponent. Its existence does not actually alter the mathematical success of containment and MAD.

[Ibelsd]

Neverending, the logic still doesn't fail. We can be very, very thankful that Petrov didn't destroy the world, and that Kennedy and Khrushkev were reasonable men, and that Kissinger steadied Nixon's hand in Vietnam, as the crazy Californian wanted to nuke Hanoi. Can we continue to be blessed by luck, or does a small probability, risked many times, give way to inevitability. The logic of eventual nuclear conflict in a nuclear-weaponed world is probabilistically inrefutable..
This is use of the gambler's fallacy to legitimize your claim. A small probability is a small probability. The fact such a probability is repeated does not increase its chance of occurance. The fact nukes have not been used is not luck. It is mathematics applied. There is simply no motivation for any state to use nukes against another nuke wielding state. There is no gain to be had. That is logic. Your claims of logic are nothing but appeals to emotion. Quite the opposite of logic.



As to the sustainability to universal disarmament, the knowledge of how to make nuclear device doesn't equate with the technology to produce one. The IAEA is tasked to monitor facilities where uranium and plutonium are processed, and, according to their scientists, are capable of verifiably accounting for all fuel. The willingness of states to acquiesce to IAEA investigation is a barometer of the trust possible with universal disarmament.
Again, the technology and desire to make nukes exists. Disarmament is not a logical possibility. It would take just one state to break the agreement and to set every other state into production. Your idea is a stab at utopianism without regard for the actual realpolitik of the situation.



Right now, as the logic goes, Iran has every ethical reason (but no legal right, under the NNPT) towards building a nuclear weapon capacity. If Zionist State of Israel is allowed the devices, why not then the Islamic Republic of Iran? On, a democratic scale, Iran places echelons above Israel, as the latter unjustifiably disenfranchises millions, both through its racist policies towards non-Jews and its incarceration of millions in the Occupied territories. Also, to decry Iran as terrorist-supporting for their backing of Hezbollah is myopic and hypocritical. Justice is largely based on equality, which can be considered synonymous with reciprocity. Should some have nukes, all are permitted them, in the eyes of justice.
What the hell is Zionist State of Israel? Is that your made up name for the state of Israel? This is an ad-hom and detracts from your argument. Israel is allowed nuke devices because it poses no threat to other nuke wielding countries. It has not sought to fund terrorists to harm western states. It has not supported terrorists that hijack airplanes. Its ethical standards are very similar to those in the west. It is run by a democratic style government which allows Arabs, as well as, Jews. Your arguments are invalid, unsupported, and without merit.

You are also missing a key component of political relations. States are not concerned with equality among states. States are looking to maintain leverage over other states. States who have leverage get to use it. Justice is not a term which applies in this instance. Iran is free to try to make nukes. There are consequences for its actions, though. It may draw sanctions from other countries who are equally free to use their influence to prevent Iran's nuke program. It may even draw an attack from a state which feels threatened by Irans's program. This isn't about justice. It is about states acting in their own best interests.

[FruitandNut]

Ibby - the more that nukes are spread about and shared in the world, the less the security and the greater the risk of the tech. falling into the hands of 'oddballs' - God knows, there are enough of that description in humankind. Mini nuke tech. and simple 'dirty bombs' makes this even more likely. It is just a matter of time - MATHEMATICALLY/STATISTICALLY. Each day is as another throw of the dice to refer to the 'Gambler's Fallacy'. At the moment the 'clumping' is to our advantage, or so it seems.

There will be more and more nuke waste from power stations to look after and keep secure for many decades and even centuries. At the present the UK alone has waste enough to fill the Albert Hall more than 5 times over!

[Ibelsd]

Ibby - the more that nukes are spread about and shared in the world, the less the security and the greater the risk of the tech. falling into the hands of 'oddballs' - God knows, there are enough of that description in humankind. Mini nuke tech. and simple 'dirty bombs' makes this even more likely. It is just a matter of time - MATHEMATICALLY/STATISTICALLY. Each day is as another throw of the dice to refer to the 'Gambler's Fallacy'. At the moment the 'clumping' is to our advantage, or so it seems.

There will be more and more nuke waste from power stations to look after and keep secure for many decades and even centuries. At the present the UK alone has waste enough to fill the Albert Hall more than 5 times over!

There should be a distinction between nukes in the hands of established states and nukes in the hands of private organization. THe former may lead to greater overall peace and security. The later is assuredly a recipe for trouble. We always note the prinicple of the "madman" when talking about nukes. However, even a supposed purely insance leader like North Korea's has refrained from nuking anyone. I think the policy of containment, though, addresses this concern by at least keeping nuclear proliferation controlled. If one realizes, comes to grips, with the fact 100% complete disarmament is fantasy, there is really one two viable options left. Unadultered proliferation. Any state is free to have as many as they want. The option is controlled proliferation (ie. containment).

Acknowledging we don't want nukes in the hands of private organization since, according to game theory, may benefit by using nukes rather than simply owning them, unadulted proliferation seems especially risky. After all, the more nukes out there, the greater the opportunity for a private group to get hold of one or more. As such, the best policy, at present, is containment. It isn't perfect. After all, the existence of nukes does pose a low probability of nukes being used in conflict. However, it is the most mathematically viable option.

Consider the actual theory involved. Let's suppose we have two states, A and B. Both have nukes. Both have enough to effectively return nukes if one is attacked premptively. Of course, the greatest harm goes to the country who is attacked first, with all things being equal. So, if neither country attacks first, both countries benefit. If country A attacks country B, both lose, but B loses worse. We can apply the same logic if B premptively attacks A. If both countries strike at the same time, both lose equally, and just as great as if they were attacked premptively. So, the only motivation for one country to attack premptively, would be to avoid a premptive attack. Since both players know this, an attack by either is highly improbable since both players would lose should either attack. This is simple game theory.

[Nouvelian]

Ibelsd, when it comes to "The fact such a probability is repeated does not increase its chance of occurance."

If you flip a coin once, what is the probability of heads: 50%.
If you flip it twice, what is the probability of heads at least once: 75%.

If you flip a imbalanced coin that has a 98% chance of tails (and 2% chance of heads) 100 times, what is the probability of heads at least once: 86.74%
[1 - ((0.98)^100 X (0.02)^0)] (The binomial distribution)

The more times it is chanced, the more likely it is to occur at least once. With nuclear war, once is enough.

As to your game theory model, it works as well in your theoretical world as could universal disarmament.

There exists many scenarios for nuclear war. We are witnessing one unfold in the Middle East right now, with Iran ratcheting up the rhetoric towards confrontation. Here are many, in bullet form:

1. The Despot.
"I am the state", where the leader equates his survival, as leader, to the survival of the state. This applies to current dictators Kim Il Sung of North Korea and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, whom both wield nukes. You take succor from Sung's 'refrain', yet his reluctance can only be hoped to be infinite. Should the Korean be attacked, or believe an attack was imminent, the possibility of him nuking anyone he sees fit is not a small one. As to Musharraf's Pakistan, his generals don't share the common view that nuclear war is cataclysmic. General Misra Aslam Beg: "We can make a first strike, a second strike and even a third. Look - you can die crossing the street, or you can die in a nuclear war. You've got to die some day anyway." The more pervasive nuclear weapons are, the more likely they are to fall within hands of people willing to use them.

2. The Accident (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
In 1983, a false alert in a Soviet early warning bunker nearly precipitated the 'End'. Unless one believes in divine intervention, there existed then the serious chance that Russia would've nuked the US, and we know how that would've went down.

3. Brinkmanship (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Dulles' foreign policy doctrine of threatening war, essentially of playing a game of chicken (according to Bertrand Russell) It could apply now to the dynamic between Iran & US/Israel, and between India & Pakistan, but a few decades back, : "The historian, ethicist and philosopher Yashar Keramati believes that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was the most evident display of brinkmanship, when the United States and the U.S.S.R were pushed to the "brink" of a nuclear war, until Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev finally compromised with U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Keramati also goes on to say such brinkmanship could lead to the use nuclear force due to lack of reliable intelligence." During the crisis, JFK reasoned that [a non-nuclear] air strike [to take out the missile sites] would neutralize the missiles but would likely force the USSR to take Berlin "which leaves me only one afternative which is to fire nuclear weapons - which is a hell of an afternative - to begin a nuclear exchange." (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

4. Nutters
The proliferation of weapons into the hands of crazies, notably 'Islamofascists', might lead to the covert smuggling of a weapon into a large city, and detonation. Who knows what the victim nation would do, but chances are it would want to hit someone.

These scenarios could coalesce into a despot, whilst playing at brinkmanship, falsely perceives an imminent attack, and hands over a couple warheads to some nutters to be his/her proxy. Does that sound all that far-fetched?

So far, in agreement? The unlikely chance of 'heads' (see above) becomes more likely. These scenarios, chanced again, and again, and again, would probably lead to nuclear war.

Right, now is containment working? Read what Iranians are thinking (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about not developing uranium processing. Understand that the invasion of Iraq, and the lack of invasion of N.K., and the possible invasion of Iran, is a logic that screams for proliferation. It is illogical, using current 'realpolitik', to believe that nations wont develop their own nuclear weapons.

The more nukes , the more chances, the more likely.

A logic Robert McNamara agrees with (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power—a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."

"If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists"

"I, and an increasing number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security experts, believe: We must move promptly toward the elimination—or near elimination—of all nuclear weapons."

[FruitandNut]

Nouvelain - I go with most of your arguments, but would caution the elimination of nukes altogether, as we can't trust all of humanity to 'play cricket with that one'. (Translation for our non-cricket playing US bretheren - equates with the idea of 'fair play'.)

[Nouvelian]

F&N, I reckon that their existence in the hands of few encourages other to develop them.

Aghast as many ardent nationalists might be, could a thoroughly democratic international body, holding on to a dozen or so warheads, as the sole legitimate possessor of nukes be universally, or nearly universally accepted, negate the logic of proliferation? Could that be sustained? Would there not still be the chance of mis-firing, or bad intel?

It's certainly a better scenario than the current one. I agree wholeheartedly with McNamara that the debate needs to happen now.

[FruitandNut]

The problem is that having no nukes means that we are at the mercy of the bad guys' good will - if they have any. We can't undo the knowledge, and the stockpiles of nuke waste mount ever skyward presenting a long-term security issue.

ps. An internationally held stock of nukes could never be a serious option either, as the UN would still be debating the issue even as they got cremated and vapourised by a surprise hit.

[Snoop]

In all seriousness, I think activists in this area (nuclear non-proliferation) ahould investigate this site and apply for a grant: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

About the Ploughshares Fund

The Ploughshares Fund is a public grantmaking foundation that supports initiatives to prevent the spread and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and other weapons of war, and to prevent conflicts that could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

History

In the twenty-two years since the Ploughshares Fund was founded, we have made grants totaling more than $40 million to become the largest grantmaking foundation in the U.S. focusing exclusively on peace and security issues. During this time, the nuclear threat has changed, but has not dissipated. We have built an organization capable of responding to new threats to global security as they have emerged – the vulnerability of poorly-guarded nuclear weapons and materials following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the changing nature of armed conflict after the Cold War, and the geopolitical upheavals in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

As a so-called “venture funder” we have specialized in giving start-up funding to promising new endeavors, and then helping to leverage more substantial support from other sources. So doing , the Ploughshares Fund has proven time and again that modest amounts of money, given to the right people at the right time, can yield profound results.

Among the people and projects that have been nourished with early funding from the Ploughshares Fund are:



The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, whose efforts led to a global treaty to abolish anti-personnel landmines in record time , and the Nobel Peace Prize;
Public campaigns to compel governments to oppose the development of a new generation of “usable” nuclear weapons and to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.
Physicist David Albright's work with scientists in Brazil and Argentina in the mid-1980s that paved the way for those countries to renounce their pursuit of nuclear weapons;
Programs to reorient Russian nuclear weapons facilities and scientists to productive, economically viable endeavors, including the establishment of non-proliferation centers at former nuclear weapons labs;
A network of civil society organizations that are monitoring governments’ adherence to the biological weapons treaty, in the absence of any official verification regime;
The installation of seismic monitoring equipment in the Soviet Union that proved that a ban on nuclear testing could indeed be verified;
Establishing a "Code of Conduct" among European governments to prohibit the sale of arms to dictators and human rights abusers.

Click on "Grants" above for information about current initatives funded by the Ploughshares Fund.

[Snoop]

Here are some sobering details about nuclear near misses (mishaps):


20 Mishaps that Might Have
Started Accidental Nuclear War (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

We may not be so lucky the 21st time.

[Ibelsd]

Ibelsd, when it comes to "The fact such a probability is repeated does not increase its chance of occurance."

If you flip a coin once, what is the probability of heads: 50%.
If you flip it twice, what is the probability of heads at least once: 75%.

If you flip a imbalanced coin that has a 98% chance of tails (and 2% chance of heads) 100 times, what is the probability of heads at least once: 86.74%
[1 - ((0.98)^100 X (0.02)^0)] (The binomial distribution)

The more times it is chanced, the more likely it is to occur at least once. With nuclear war, once is enough.
Ok, I wish I can remember why stats of pure chance are being discussed, but a two sided coin has a 50% chance of landing on either side on each flip. No more. No less. That such should occur consecutively is a different issue, but doesn't effect the actual odds for any singular flip of the coin.




As to your game theory model, it works as well in your theoretical world as could universal disarmament.
Except for one problem. Universal disarmament is not something which can be attained. Never. Just one country needs to oppose the policy of disarmament. How long until that occured. Just one rogue state would need to roll the dice and start a nuke program. Then, universal disarmament is done. Gone. And game theory? Woe be to those who foolishly disarmed.



There exists many scenarios for nuclear war. We are witnessing one unfold in the Middle East right now, with Iran ratcheting up the rhetoric towards confrontation. Here are many, in bullet form:
We can come up with a dozen scenarios if you like. In fact, exactly zero of those scenarios has ever occured.



A logic Robert McNamara agrees with (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power—a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."
Now point to me the place in the article where McNamara states universal disarmament is the answer....[/QUOTE]



"I, and an increasing number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security experts, believe: We must move promptly toward the elimination—or near elimination—of all nuclear weapons."
As in reduction... No one is arguing that we should not reduce our nuke stockpiles. No one is seriously arguing for unfettered proliferation. So, I agree with McNamara in principle. Reduce stockpiles of nukes. You, though, are arguing that the U.S. simply destroys all of its nuke weapons and then hopes for the best. Good luck with that one.

[FruitandNut]

Good news guys, we can go out and buy our own key fob geiger counter for under a 100quid/pounds!

[KevinBrowning]

I don't remember Nouvelian answering this simple question: Would he rather that the U.S. got rid of all its nukes, while North Korea kept all of its? How is it better and safer for one country owning a lot of nukes to just suddenly dispose of them all, leaving itself wide open to attack and encouraging an aggressive nation to start nuking it?

[Nouvelian]

As to KB's question, dis-armament wouldn't occur in the blink of an eye, but over time. The pace at the moment is puzzling, as moves are being made in both directions. Stockpiles shrinking, but new bombs (mini-nukes, etc.) engineered.

Ideally, I'd expect the rate within each nation during universal disarmament to be proportional to the size of the stockpile, so that all would eventually count down to 0 together. For this to even be contemplated, all NWSs, including undeclared Israel, would need to convene for a further chapter/pledge, and set a timetable.

[jamesb5007]

Why should countries, namely the US and the EU, feel they have the right to tell other nations whether or not they're allowed to develop nuclear arms?

The question is both legal and ethical.

.

This is a great question, but I'd like to respond to the practical side of it, NOT the legal or ethical side of it. Practically speaking, countries can only have the ability to disarm when there is strong cohesion between most of the countries. When a nuclear superpower denigrates the organization that bonds together the countries of this world, namely the UN, it becomes very difficult for the world to disarm.

And when a rogue superpower unilaterally invades another country, talks of creating a new line of nuclear weapons, and DOESN'T invade another country thought to be really close to developing nuclear weapons, this sets the stage for more nations to develop nuclear weapons programs. If I was the sane leader of Iran right now I'd have no choice but to seek nuclear weapons.

Legally and ethically nuclear weapons are as bad as biological weapons. I'd add to that list robotic "smart" weapons. Getting killed by some kid two hundred miles away hooked up to a really cool nintendo set shows full well that the country that brought you the atomic bomb is still just as sick and dangerous as it was 60 years ago.

[jamesb5007]

This is use of the gambler's fallacy to legitimize your claim. A small probability is a small probability. The fact such a probability is repeated does not increase its chance of occurance.


Others have already pointed out how the fact that such a probability is repeated DOES increase its chance of occurance. They are right. This is a hard thing for the human mind to grasp. I heard a puzzle once that after I figured it out, really helped me with lots of probability stuff:

You're on The Price is Right. Bob Barker asks you to pick between three closed curtains. There's only one winner. You choose curtain #1. Bob opens up curtain #3. It's a loser. Bob then asks you "do you want to switch? Half the audience is screaming SWITCH SWITCH! Half the audience is screaming STAY STAY! Which half is right?

hint: one half of the audience's answer will increase your chances of winning.

[jamesb5007]

To boil it all down, some say that NWSs disarming is a fools errand, as it leaves you defenseless. I retort that not disarming exhorts non-NWSs to arm themselves, and eventually leads to nuclear war. I think this issue, like global warming, is a litmus test of the maturity of humanity, and we're probably going to fail.

I completely agree. I also think that the world may have a chance if America's powers are greatly reduced. We are the number one global threat on each of these issues.

[FruitandNut]

Here are some sobering details about nuclear near misses (mishaps):


20 Mishaps that Might Have
Started Accidental Nuclear War (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

We may not be so lucky the 21st time.

It vil keep ze sehr gut Dr. Strangelove happy calculating ze impact time mine leiblings und mine Fuhrer. Ah, I vas foggetink, I mean mein President! Seig heil! Did mein arm shoot out ven I did zat??? Old habitz!!!!