The Economist magazine had a leader a few years ago attributing the absense of a World War for the past 60 years to the existence of nuclear weapons and the sheer horror of them, which has made major powers reluctant to engage each other in war for fear such weapons ultimately would be used.
In other words, they have made the prospect of war so horrible, that war between nations that have them has been avoided and diplomacy has been ascendant. Recently, we saw India and Pakistan step back from the brink of war precisely because they feared it might escalate to a nuclear scale.
Here in the US, a lot of gun advocates use a version of this same argument. They say if more people packed deadly weapons, there would be fewer robberies and muggings because criminals would be afraid to attack people who might be capable of killing them. If the pro-gun argument has any merit at all, why wouldn’t it have merit on an international scale?
If the pro-gun argument has any merit at all, why wouldn’t it have merit on an international scale?
Because the pro-gun environment might reduce overall crime, but there will be some instances where the model doesn’t work (i.e. abuse of gun possession privileges). In the international arena, even a single abuse might not be acceptable. Just like possession of firearms illegally becomes easier, so might proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of non-states.
Actually, in the event that a foreign power develops a viable nuclear shield- ie. something like SDI- you’d have to be able to project massive numbers of warheads. Any hypothetical nuclear intercept system would be able to neutralize probably 95% of warheads launched at its blanketed territory.
Thus, you’d need 5% of the missiles available for launch at any given time to be enough to vaporize whatever needed vaporizing- major cities, military installations, rallying points, etc.
Yes, nuclear weapons undoubtedly make war between nuclear powers less likely. That is the upside.
Because when there’s a hiccup in the “everybody has guns” system, someone dies, but when there’s a hiccup in the “everybody has nukes” system, millions of people die.
Given a world with many thousands of nuclear warheads and enough time, large-scale nuclear war is inevitable. I think it is worth risking some extra (conventional) wars to avoid nuclear armageddon.
You know, that’s not a bad argument. I read an editorial a few years ago that effectively said, “The space race bankrupted the USSR and led to its fall.”
It is entirely possible that the pursuit of ridiculously expensive nuclear weapons would either bankrupt a failing dictatorship, or give it the incentive to clean-house enough that it could afford the program and thus improve the country.
The downside to this, however, is that once the government falls (as was the case with Russia) you end up with a whole lot of nukes and no one watching the back door…
Nah. North Korea has one of the worst economies on the planet and they managed to do it. They just ended up selling drugs and slaves to help fund the program.
Khidmir Hamza, an ex nuclear scientist in iraq said that in Iraqs heyday they had about 300 Ph.D.s, 800 M.S., a few thousand engineers and about 10 thousand technicians working on the bomb, he also stated in the book that it took a few billion to build the bomb and im assuming it would’ve cost even less had their nuclear reactor not been destroyed by Israel in 1981. Everything except the fuel was easy to make.
So bombmaking is not what it was in 1942 in Los Alamos when endless billions and tens of thousands of Ph.D.s were needed to work on it.
Before the USSR exploded it’s first test bomb in 1949 and the arms race took off, Oppenheimer proposed a system in which the potential to build nukes would be spread out internationally. One country would mine uranium, another would have a U-235 enrichment plant, a third would operate a breeder reactor, a fourth would build test designs for bombs, etc. The idea was that nations would have to cooperate to explore peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and that nations would be deterred from persuing weapons programs by the knowledge that if they cheated on the treaty, their rivals would be able to immediately create their own nukes. An intriguing idea, but it was not to be.
A few people have suggested that nuclear weapons are to nations what the Colt revolver was to the American West: an “equalizer” that makes a small weak nation the equal of a big powerful one. Unfortunately this is dependent on nukes being possessed only by nation states that can be held responsible for their use. The idea of terrorism going nuclear is too horrible to risk.
I think the only argument for nuclear proliferation is that it could make wars between states less likely. If every country has nukes, they are less likely to go to war with each other.
However, I think its a flawed argument because there are more civil wars than wars between states, so the reduction in the level of conflict isn’t as great as might be imagined. Also, the reality of nuclear proliferation isn’t that all countries get nukes, what happens is some countries get them and can threaten their non-nuclear neighbours. Finally, the more countries that have them, the greater the chance that they might get used, and the greater the chance that they might fall into the hands of terrorists.
The existence of nuclear weapons demands nuclear proliferation.
Since we don’t have global peace (goddammit) and every nation is some other country’s enemy, as long as one country has nukes another country will need to defend itself against a possible attack.
Although George W may be developing a nuclear defence system, the only current defence is deterrence - namely more nuclear weapons.
The existence of a defence system will encourage attacks. If you rule a country from within your nice anti-nuclear shield or whatever, you’d be much more happy about nuking someone else.
So there are 2 solutions: 1) everyone has nukes and no one can defend themselves, or 2) no one has nukes.
Nuclear defences will be invented - pretty soon too - so solution number 1 goes out the window. Our only option is global disarmament. I hope you realised this is a real argument for abolishing nuclear weapons, not some hippy garbage.
Of course, when I’m president I’ll press for global cooperation instead of world domination.
Nuclear defense (SDI, whatever) is very valuable in several circumstances. One, a small attack. Two, an accidental launch. Three, a terrorist gaining control of a bomb (other scenarios like this are easy to spin out). OTOH, I really don’t see any nuclear defense on the horizon that will ensure anything near 95% coverage. There are too many ways to deliver a weapon, even without thinking unconventionally. Merely overwhelming the system is probably enough. ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, bombers with missiles, stealth missiles, etc. What rational actor will risk losing 20 major cities? Given: two MIRVed ICBMs might be able to take out 20 major cities.
The problem with nuclear deterrence is that it assumes rational actors not merely going up a chain of escalation and that nations won’t lash out in desperation. Just because the United States and the Soviet Union avoided catastrophe does not mean the model works in Third World nations without advanced safeguards and early warning systems. Not to mention poor leadership, spread out over many nuclear states.
India and Pakistan might demostrate an argument against nuclear deterrence. They continually fight, and it always seems to be ready to escalate. Moreover, they are militarizing further. I’m not denying that nuclear deterrence “works” in some instances. One might argue that the cost of modern conventional war has acted as a deterrent to the truly rational actors. Look what carpet bombing with “dumb” bombs did towards the end of WWII.
Assuming nuclear deterrence works over the short term, which it may have in some instances, what is the long term cost? Projecting universal nuclear deterrence out over the long term, assuming human conduct over our history, will inevitably lead to universal nuclear war. Murphy’s Law(#1). I cannot think of any deadly strategic weapon built, but never used. I would further contend that resources might be diverted into more productive things than figuring out new and deadlier ways to overwhelm air defense systems.
Countries with sufficient nukes to defend themselves could adopt a strategy of minimal conventional forces - a la the US in the Eisenhower era. As nukes, (once you have them) provide more bang for the buck then conventional forces, resources could be diverted to other purposes (education, tax cuts, internal repression, or gold plated Mercedes). And once the country goes nuclear, one of the senior members of the big boys’ club will sit the newbie down and explain that they now play by the big boys rules - you may do as you like with your own people but be very careful about where else you play.
And as most governments show sound judgement, rationality, and a keen sense of where their nations’ long term best interests lie, there should be no issue of wars starting over conventional stupidity or of sales to unsavory characters or organizations. Or not.
We cannot assume that governments will be sensible. You should surely know that Hitler was elected. Don’t trust the buggers - we need to safeguard against our own rulers and giving them responsibility for a nuke is not safe.
I would warrant that 99,5% of governments would never use nuclear weapons if not 100% of them. Afterall they are trying to keep themselves in power… starting nuclear wars gains them nothing.
If everyone had nukes would this stop wars ? Very probably. Would nuclear wars happen ? Never. The cost is too high. Mostly we would see Cold War ops but between smaller countries.
The problem is small groups of fanatics... be they Waco US style or Al Qaeda style would have a much easier time robbing/smuggling/buying or diverting nukes if everyone had them. More nukes means more chances of wrongful use... and probably by non-government groups.
PS I would love to see some american pro-gun freaks explaining how this analogy between guns for everyone is different from nukes for everyone !
Gun Scenario.
Person A accidentally/intentionally kills 1-13 people
Nuke Scenario
Person A intentionally kills 1-13 million people (I omit the accidentally here as I don’t think someone could ever fire one/plant one without realizing the consequences)
When an analogy is off by 6 orders of magnitude I wouldn’t give it much credence.
We are only talking about nuclear weapons. Nations will still have the capabilities to raze each other to the ground, but with less fallout and radiation. A person is either armed or unarmed. Moreover, a gun won’t kill New York with one shot.
Grey At what lethality ratio would the analogy hold? Atomic Bombs okay but not Hydrogen Bombs? 5 kilotons? Radiological weapons? Should we allow nations to have 1000 B-17/B-29/Lancaster equivalents capable only of dropping iron bombs and incendiaries or does that come too close to the “too deadly” limit. I think the nuke/non nuke issue is as much about crossing a threshhold as it is about raw ability to destroy. Probably shouldn’t continue the hijack in this thread though.
The Shill I guess the sarcastic nature of my commentary on governmental response didn’t come through. My bad - I tend to forget that the average reader can’t hear the tone of voice in which I am thinking (at least not without smilies). Governments that have behaved rationally and responsibly* for periods of more than a few decades at a time are few and far between. And the time difference between inconceivable and inevitable is always suprisingly small.
Grey Right, it is only one bomb. But if one had either 1000 B-29’s or 1 B-29 and 1 atomic bomb it still works out to one less Japanese city.
But what is the cut-off for permissible weapons then - is it 1% of the most powerful weapon fielded by the big boy’s club, 10% of the smallest practical atomic bomb, or a weapon 130 times as powerful as an AK-47 - whatever that would be (although obviously 130 AK’s would be allowed).
I definitely agree that non-proliferation is the sanest option - for everyone involved.
Beagle With cluster bombs and landmines one could render a pretty large area uninhabitable without massive cleanup efforts (see Laos)
Absolutely. I could render an area uninhabitable with enough Round Up and beagle dog flatulence. Sorry, that’s a personal problem – at this moment.
The major problem with proliferation is that the generals don’t just throw up their hands and say, “swords into plowshares, everyone, it’s pointless now”. No, nuclear war planning just involves bigger circles on the map.
BTW, Pakistan and India are talking now. Hopefully, my dire sounding analysis will lead to an outbreak of peace and love in Kashmir. Then we give nukes to South Korea to spread peace even further. Here, Syria – you and Israel run along and play.