toblerone3
Grrrrr
Mutually Assured Devolution. Anarchism in a good way.
Nuclear Weapons: Should Everyone have them?
- Thread starter toblerone3
- Start date
Mutually Assured Devolution. Anarchism in a good way.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Unless they actually are very corrupt. 
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
We humans are basically stupid. Have a listen to this...
http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/09/18/daniel-ellsberg-6/
terrifying stuff. If we weren't such a herd of imbeciles led by ridiculous morons we'd have done away with the nuclear stock-piles long ago.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/09/18/daniel-ellsberg-6/
terrifying stuff. If we weren't such a herd of imbeciles led by ridiculous morons we'd have done away with the nuclear stock-piles long ago.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Did anyone hear about the Colnel Gadaffi speech at the UN? 
toblerone3
Grrrrr
I just listened to part of that. It just blew me away. I was going to let this thread die. But I won't now.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
It's amazing really, we're all worried about global warming, and yet all it takes is a random flock of geese or a weather balloon during a tense moment between the US and Russia or something and that's it for life on Earth.
We're all only still alive because Yelcin decided not to press the button afterall during one of the many false alarms. They happen quite regularly apparently. Still, good to know Obama wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles to Apocalypse x 1000 from Apocalyps x 1300 or something.
This is the normal insanity of 'defense' architecture, and our whole entire species is hideously foolish to accept it.
We're all only still alive because Yelcin decided not to press the button afterall during one of the many false alarms. They happen quite regularly apparently. Still, good to know Obama wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles to Apocalypse x 1000 from Apocalyps x 1300 or something.
This is the normal insanity of 'defense' architecture, and our whole entire species is hideously foolish to accept it.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
It's amazing really, we're all worried about global warming, and yet all it takes is a random flock of geese or a weather balloon during a tense moment between the US and Russia or something and that's it for life on Earth.
We're all only still alive because Yelcin decided not to press the button afterall during one of the many false alarms. They happen quite regularly apparently. Still, good to know Obama wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles to Apocalypse x 1000 from Apocalyps x 1300 or something.
This is the normal insanity of 'defense' architecture, and our whole entire species is hideously foolish to accept it.
What is happening to reduce the number of false alarms?
Is this situation getting worse
Or better ?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
and the good news is that if americas enemies do want to go nuclear they will definitely be raining down fire on us as well.
david dissadent
New Member
Highly unlikely, infact it may not have registered as a major extinction event. More akin to another Toba than the K-T.
Offcourse things are bit different for humans and their cities and agriculture.
david dissadent
New Member
Better radars less tension.
Although the rumors of Yetsin nearly launching on word of a Norwegian sounding rocket are pretty persistant.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Yes, you're quite right of course. But nuclear winter would do it for much of mammal-kind, thousands of burning cities plus loads of radioactive fallout... cold, dark, ashy and radiation-blightedy.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
MAD is a great idea. Because then entire countries that hate each other devote their lives to understanding each other and negotiations. Gets them out of our hair. Same should apply to pretty much anyone who doesn't get on with the neighbours. Give a few nukes each and tell them to get on with it.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
On that basis India and Pakistan have MAD. So Iran and Israel could have MAD as well.
Interesting the news story about the new Iranian refinement plant this morning.
Interesting the news story about the new Iranian refinement plant this morning.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
not really. Pakistan doesn't have enough nukes to take out India's population. They could chuck all they have and thier would still by millions of angry indians left.
e2a
I'm pretty sure the same would apply with Israel v Iran. IIRC there are a fuck of a lot of people in Iran.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
No-ones yet really talked about the core issue here which is what i imagined this thread would be about in the OP.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Its interesting the case of Pakistan. The US appears to have accepted the fact that they have nuclear weapons and they are not under pressure to disarm. Is Pakistan more stable than Iran?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
fuck no
but they aren't cohesively hostile. Our spooks work with thiers, as do US spooks. I'd also question as to wether they have the sort of delivery systems capable of reaching targets the US gives a shit about.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
1. Pakistan has enough warheads and delivery vehicles to perform both the counterforce role (blowing up enemy missile bases) and significantly degrade India's major population centres. There's a reasonable strategic balance of forces there, altho it's still arguable that one side could 'win' a limited exchange, which is the most unstable situation to be in
2. MAD wouldn't work in the ME - Iran or whoever would only need to aquire 10 10mt fusion weapons to effectively annihilate Israel. Also, they'd have to talk to Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon before doing it because it would really fuck that whole region, plus much of SE Europe.
3. MAD only works when you've got good communications between the protagonists, and you have overkill in warheads. The smaller, and less numerous, the warheads, the greater the likelihood of them being used, especially in battlefield theatres, or as 'bunker busters'. Less nukes = potentially winnable exchange.
However, everyone should be issued with a small, personal nuke at birth.
2. MAD wouldn't work in the ME - Iran or whoever would only need to aquire 10 10mt fusion weapons to effectively annihilate Israel. Also, they'd have to talk to Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon before doing it because it would really fuck that whole region, plus much of SE Europe.
3. MAD only works when you've got good communications between the protagonists, and you have overkill in warheads. The smaller, and less numerous, the warheads, the greater the likelihood of them being used, especially in battlefield theatres, or as 'bunker busters'. Less nukes = potentially winnable exchange.
However, everyone should be issued with a small, personal nuke at birth.
Zabo
Well-Known Member
Remove all nuclear weapons and the world could take part in a 'kill-fest' like before. Think of all the arms sales, shares going through the roof, no unemployment. Okay, there maybe be a few casualties but that could soon be resolved with a 'sex-fest' just like the 1950's.
I wonder?
By the way. Is Chavez still talking at the U.N.?
I wonder?
By the way. Is Chavez still talking at the U.N.?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Nuclear Weapons are the most powerful weapons known to man. They were developed to win world war two and during that war obliterated two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagaski.
That the world wants to avoid them being used again is behind the nuclear non proliferation treaty which while not perfect is the only way of us having a chance of getting the nuclear weapons genie back in the bottle.
So, no, not everybody should have them, as few people as possible should have them and they should consider reducing the numbers that they have as much as feasible. The risk that a terrorist could get their hands on nuclear weapons increases with every new state that gets them and the risk posed by an unbalanced leader getting them is similar.
That the world wants to avoid them being used again is behind the nuclear non proliferation treaty which while not perfect is the only way of us having a chance of getting the nuclear weapons genie back in the bottle.
So, no, not everybody should have them, as few people as possible should have them and they should consider reducing the numbers that they have as much as feasible. The risk that a terrorist could get their hands on nuclear weapons increases with every new state that gets them and the risk posed by an unbalanced leader getting them is similar.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
the whole postwar soviet history would be diffrent without nukes on the table.
but from the late 70's to the late 80's would have been the most dangerous period. after that the soviets numerical superoity is undercut by nato technological superoirty and the soviet state begins to crumble and Warsaw pact client states begin to become unreliable.
brezenev was dieing andropov was actually dead and the last one was on top of a rapidly falling military superpower
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Pragmatism. It maintains the balance of power while controlling escalation. The more bombs in unstable hands, the more likely it is something will go apocalyptic. There's no "right" to have nukes. Fairness doesn't come into it really: it's a rather desperate business of survival.
Nothing's perfect. Imagine how much worse it'd be if it was a free-for-all, with every tinpot dictatorship at liberty to tool up without consequence.
I'm all for multilateral disarmament if it can be negotiated. But I don't see the failure to do so as reason for cast aside the rules we've managed to draw up. If ever there's an area of policy that cries out to be left alone by idealists and their abstract notions of perfection, it's this!
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Nuclear powers use their nuclear weapons to blugeon and bully (sometimes for their own selfish interests).
toblerone3
Grrrrr
When America announces that all options are on the table wrt Iran. That is a USE of nuclear weapons. 
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
True, so it's a seriously bad idea if everyone is free to tool up. How much more bludgeoning and bullying would we see then? (And no, smaller countries wouldn't be better off, as they'd be compelled to endlessly up arms expenditure to offer a realistic deterrent.) If everyone has nukes, the most ruthless people will be the ones with most power.
Ideally there'd be no nukes for anyone. This isn't an ideal world. The question is how to limit the damage.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
I'm against everyone having them. I've nowhere to put them.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
I listened to this for an hour this morning. A incridibly well informed interviewee.
Daniel Ellseberg worked for MacNamara as a military planner in the early 1960s. But this guy has changed his life. This guy has a nice voice.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
So..
Similar threads
- Poll
