So being wiped out by conventional weapons isn’t a deterrent, but being wiped out by nuclear weapons is?
I don’t think the US (or other NATO allies) gain much deterrent effect at all from having nuclear weapons. NATO is powerful enough to pretty much wipe out by conventional means any country that might attack them. That wasn’t true in the cold war, when nukes did provide a useful deterrent effect. Now that NATO is so comparatively strong it doesn’t need nukes.
Nukes are also not a deterrent against terrorists. They know that no western country is going use nukes against terrorists because to do so would mean killing millions of innocent people.
I don’t think that the threat of conventional weapons is as REAL to people as a nuke is. As an example, look at Afghanistan. The Taliban COULD have negotiated with the US, they COULD have turned over AQ members hiding out in their country. Hell, they COULD have made a token effort to do so. They chose to fight it out. THEY certainly didn’t fear the US’s conventional weapons, did they? It was stupid, but people generally weigh fears disproportionally.
People fear of dieing in a plane crash when they are more likely to be killed in a car accident. They fear dieing of SARS or god knows what, when they will most likely die of cancer from smoking or heart disease from eating too much. Nation states make the same kinds of mistakes.
From Planet of the Shapes
And I think you are wrong. I think that nation states gain a HUGE amount of deterent from having the evil things. I also think that it prevents nation states from going at each others throats. Its the ease of use thing. Conventional wars are messy, they take time, and I think that many countries feel (wrongly) that they can fight it out, bleeding NATO or the US white until we tuck tail and bolt. However, many of the rogue nation states KNOW that if they step out of line enough, and say set off a nuke in Paris, or drop anthrax in London, or Ebola in Miami, that the chances are nuclear mushrooms will be blooming in THEIR capital. Personally, think they are wrong, and we’d most likely do it conventionally anyway, but its the FEAR of that casual retaliation that keeps them somewhat in check.
From Planet of the Shapes
I conceed that this is the case. Never said they were in fact. But, they are SOMEWHAT of a deterrent against a rogue state giving said terrorists HIGHLEVEL WMD…because if it gets traced back to said rogue state, in THEIR minds those horrible mushrooms will again be blooming in their capitals.
From Planet of the Shapes
Because some fool 60 odd years ago let the cat out of the bag, and its in all our best interest that a superpower like the US, other responsible world powers like those nuclear powers in the EU and NATO be prepared for any contingency. Now, if you want to argue that the US, NATO, etc doesn’t need as MANY nukes, I’m all for that. But to say that they don’t need any…no, I think you are wrong on that.
Depends on how likely we are to use them. Terrorists have a cause. If our likely retaliation is the utter destruction of everything they are fighting for, that is a deterrent.
It’s quite amusing how those of you who oppose the US approach try to have it both ways in regards to terrorism. When it’s useful, you protray it as the evil and irrational actions of crazy men that do not represent the average Arab. Then when it is convenient you switch to protraying them as fighters for a legitimate cause who just use evil methods.
Obviously, when the subject of nuclear retaliation comes up, the terrorists are now nutcases that cannot be deterred.
Since my belief is that they are hateful men fighting for a hopeless cause, they can be deterred by threatening to destroy their cause.
Ah…forgot all about this thread…thought it had died off. I was highly drunk when last I saw all this. Um…well, let me look over the other cites you listed and refresh my memory on all this. However, its kind of pointless unless someone else is going to chime in as well.
Ok China’s proposal seems fairly self serving overall, to be honest.
From ¡¡CHINA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO
¡¡NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Why should nations abandon their policy of nuclear deterrence? I do agree that a reduction across the board of nuclear stockpiles is and would be a good thing.
From ¡¡CHINA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO
¡¡NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
This sounds like a decent plan on the face of it, though light on details. I would say that its ALREADY pretty much policy in most of the western nuclear armed countries (i.e. no first use, not to use against a non-nuclear armed power), though I will say that the wording maybe, no first use against a non-nuclear armed state that doesn’t use WMD…i.e. nukes are considered WMD and the category also includes C/B weapons as well.
From ¡¡CHINA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO
¡¡NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
This is a good point, and in fact afaik its already being done (with the exception of nuke armed ballistic missile subs) but its totally self serving of the Chinese since it helps THEM the most, as a nuclear power without external bases or externally deployed nukes (again, except for the one or two ballistic subs THEY have).
From ¡¡CHINA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO
¡¡NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Why? Again, it helps the Chinese and THEIR positions, thats why. Do you think that THEY seriously think that the US having such a limited shield would really destablize world peace, or that it would make it more appealing for the US to use some kind of first strike capability for our nukes??
Anyway, it was a fairly light site, with limited explainations, and thats my 10 min. take on it (for whatever thats worth :)).
I’ll see if anyone else responds and if the thread comes back alive before doing the other ones.
I think that what clairobscur was getting at is that you seem to be saying that the “Big 5” on the Security Council have vetos because they have nukes. At least, that’s the implication I draw from your wording “No other country had them except those 5. They became the permanent members…”
If that’s what you’re saying, it’s incorrect. They became the permanent members when the UN was set up on October 25, 1945, following ratification of the Charter by the Big 5 and the requisite number of other countries. At that time, only the US had nuclear weapons. The USSR developed them next, followed eventually by the UK, France and the People’s Republic of China. (I don’t know the exact dates or sequence for the spread of nuclear weapons - anyone else know?)
Note as well that when the Communist regime took over mainland China in 1949, the Nationalist gov’t in exile in Taiwan continued to hold the China seat on the Security Council until 1971, when the General Assembly recognised the People’s Republic of China as the government of China and the legitimate holder of the Security Council seat.
The relevance of this point is that as far as I know, Taiwan has never had nuclear weapons, so until 1971, there was always at least one Security Council permanent member that did not have nukes. (According to this site, Taiwan tried unsuccessfully to develop nuclear weapons in the late 70s and again in the late 80s.)
Please go back to SentientMeat’s first post here. The context was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. It was within that context that I responded and mentioned the club of 5, with their right of veto. According to this cite, the sequence of spread was:
US (1945)
USSR (1949)
Great Britain (1952)
France (1960)
China (1964)
India (1974)
Pakistan (1998)
Israel (19??)
Note that Taiwan had already started a covert nuclear weapon program back in 1964, which could explain why she did not exercise her right of veto on the NNP treaty in 1968. In any case, by 1972, the club of 5 were the only permanent members of the UNSC, holding to their dear nuclear weapons and the right of veto. I’d say in today’s world, that is an outrageous double standard behavior. If nuclear weapons are not the desire of the world, then the top 5 should first get rid of theirs and the other three countries. Maybe only then, they can preach and police the rest of the world not to have any.
Taiwan couldn’t have vetoed the treaty, since it’s not got anything to do with the Security Council. It’s an international treaty, negotiated by the countries which signed it. The veto power only extends to measures of the Security Council.
Here is my understanding of the facts. Please correct me if/where I’m wrong.
1- According to Security Council Resolution 255 of June 19, 1968, followed by resolution 984, the nuclear non-proliferation applied to the countries that had nukes. These were US, UK, USSR and France, all 4 being the permanent members of the Security Council with right of veto.
2- In 1968, the 5th permanent member of the Security Council with right of veto was Taiwan. (She was later replaced by Mainland China in 1971).
3- Since Taiwan was the permanent member of the Security Council in 1968, she could have vetoed the measure, but she did not. In fact, in 1968 France and Taiwan abstained.
4- Eventually, both France and Taiwan joined the other 3 club members and ratified the treaty in 1970.
Taiwan was replaced by the People’s Republic of China, as a UN member and a permanent Security Council member, in 1971. It is now the only widely-recognized country in the world not in the UN at all (only the Vatican remains as an observer member, ftr).
Because China always had a seat on the UNSC. We just changed which government we recognized as the Chinese one - the mainland instead of the Taiwanese.