The rules for this exercise are that every nation has one and only one nuclear missile. As to the range of this missile, let’s assume this missile can hit any target on the world accurately.
The first problem is whether or not to give failed states a tactical missile and who decides such things. We will, for this argument, give a missile to every contry that has a stable government (for a hassle free definition, I give to you this chart. Every state from 21 on up will get one and only one nuke.)
I propose that this will create worldwide stability.
Of course, North Korea must give up any nukes it has. Assume it is so.
I don’t want to get into “what if a state becomes suitable/unsuitable for having a nuke?” Let’s assume the world stays at this level.
Your chart requires registration, so I can’t tell who the 21 stable countries are.
But you changed your own proposition from “every” nation to “every country that has a stable government.” Assuming 21 countries that qualify, that leaves 130-something that don’t.
I’m sure every one of those 130+ believes they’re just as qualified as the 21.
Why do you think this will create worldwide stablility?
One nuke, by itself, isn’t really enough to be deter people from blowing the hell out of each other, one nuke isn’t enough for MAD to kick in in most places.
Slight hijack, but America the state least likely to collapse in the world? :dubious: Not sure I agree with that. Most powerful, yes, and therefore least likely to fall to natural disaster, war, famine, etc, but I wouldn’t say it was anywhere near the most politically stable- especially compared to somewhere like New Zealand, Canada, or Japan, all of whom (I believe) have much less divided government and much less vicious policy disputes.
This reminds of an old “All In The Family” show where Archie Bunker went on the local news to give a citizen’s editorial–his solution to the airplane hijacking problem. “Arm yer passengers. When they get on the plane, hand out guns to everyone.”
This creates a highly volatile situation where everyone is afraid to use the weapon, creating a false sense of stability, but in reality the tension is very high and once the action starts by someone with an itchy trigger finger, everyone’s dead.
I can only think of one hot button topic likely to get the populace worked up the point where they openly defy the gov’t, and would fight violently officers of the gov’t who would try to inforce that topic.
Canada has an on-again off-again seperatist movement in Quebec.
New Zealand… I’m afraid I don’t know enough about.
Japan has an economy that, unless my understanding is totally messed up, is well known for being unstable, and a government that is in large part run by large business (the Japanese DMV, for example, I believe is run by Toyota). If the Zaibatsu companies fall, this could create some awkward and potentially destabilizing problems for the Japanese Government.
While the US has some issues in regards to partisan politics of late, it’s a fairly new thing, and I feel will decrease within the next 2 administrations.
Mayhaps someone more removed can explain to me other issues (without specifically bashing on the current administration, which will be gone in a few years anyways…) that could cause the collapse of the US gov’t.
Thing is, “vicious policy disputes” aren’t a sign of an unstable state. It’s a sign of a HEALTHY state. There are countries where the political class is pretty much unified. But that inevitably means that the political class doesn’t represent large portions of the citizenry. A unified political class, bipartisanship, call it what you will, what it really means is the people in power agree to cut each other slack and get on with the business of shafting the voters.
LOUNE: How would one nuclear missile for each country create worldwide stability? Do you think that the existence of one nuclear missile in every country would deter every one of that state’s enemies?
Let’s say a country is surrounded by five enemies. Then the one country could only nuke one of its enemies, but that country could be nuked five times by aggressors. How does that situation create more stability? Think of it another way. One nuclear weapon hitting the US would hurt, but we would not fall because of it; one nuclear weapon hitting the Vatican City would end it. So, isn’t it the case that widespread, but few, nuclear weapons would only deter small countries, but not large ones?
Finally, only having a single weapon seems to be in conflict to our currently understood parameters of what constitutes an effective deterrent. If deterrence could be achieved by a single weapon, I think we’d have a hard time understanding why the US and the Soviet Union bothered to build tens of thousands of weapons, if all they needed to prevent war was one each.
[Tom Lehrer]
Oh, we will all go together when we go
What a wonderful thing that is to know!
For when the bomb that falls on you
Gets your friends and neighbours too
There’ll be no-one left behind to grieve!
Oh, we will all go together when we go…
[/Tom Lehrer]
Let me present to you: The shortest route to world peace I have ever heard.
Just one bomb. A big bomb*. Just one guy, with orders to detonate the bomb if anything happens. Voila- peace! One way or another…
What you are describing, LOUNE is pretty much the setup for Nuclear Risk. Every play it? It’s just the regular Risk rules, with one modification: each player gets one nuke. The nuke is represented by a saucer. If you use your nuke, you cover a chosen portion of the map with your saucer. All armies in those territories die, and those territories are considered radiation poisoned and are removed from the game.
Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that one nuke never acts as a deterrent in Nuclear Risk, in my experience. The game invariably ends up with sections of the world cratered. Granted, Risk is a wargame to begin with, but it still seems fairly telling to me.
