Nuclear Disarmament

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Jordan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:50 am

Was having a discussion with drewthedude on this, and wanted to hear what people's opinions were on the subject. Particularly would like to hear opposing opinions.

I'm a bit ignorant on the topic honestly. I've heard arguments against nuclear disarmament, but they weren't very good in my opinion. Most of them centered on the notion of deterrence as a real method of maintaining peace. If there are nukes, countries will be less inclined to declare war right? People definitely won't use the nukes either, because that is just plain asking for it...right?

I don't really understand how that works. From my point of view, the world is very lucky to have averted nuclear war already thus far. It nearly happened during the Cold War, and if you changed even a few slight events at the time, I think it would have happened. The fact that nuclear war was eluded was a miracle, but with things like this, I don't think people should press their luck.

That's why I don't really understand what the drawbacks are to nuclear disarmament. To me, the only thing that nukes assure, if anything at all, is mutually assured destruction (MAD). If the US disarmed its nuclear arsenal, wouldn't other countries follow us? I think Europe would be inclined to follow our example. We could even browbeat Israel into getting rid of its nukes or stop receiving aid. Then we'd also have the moral highground against countries trying to develop nukes.

Yes I realize my opinion is naive on the subject.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Mestre Will » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:51 pm

I agree in the "If the US disarmed its nuclear arsenal, wouldn't other countries follow us? I think Europe would be inclined to follow our example. We could even browbeat Israel into getting rid of its nukes or stop receiving aid. Then we'd also have the moral highground against countries trying to develop nukes." However the same USA try (and i dont know it already made it) made an laser to destroi missiles from space. If made it then they will can use they nuke but none others will can (unless they send all they have , i doubt the laser can stop a much larger number ).
Knowledge is achieved with time, but Intelligence is born with it or without it. - Mestre Will
User avatar
Mestre Will
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:40 pm
Location: Starting to pratice Cuju with Kong Gui

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby James » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:36 pm

It sounds great, but there are countries which will not disarm. And even if those countries did 'disarm', they'd likely maintain a secret project or inventory to become re-armed at short notice.

Mestre Will wrote:I agree in the "If the US disarmed its nuclear arsenal, wouldn't other countries follow us? I think Europe would be inclined to follow our example. We could even browbeat Israel into getting rid of its nukes or stop receiving aid. Then we'd also have the moral highground against countries trying to develop nukes." However the same USA try (and i dont know it already made it) made an laser to destroi missiles from space. If made it then they will can use they nuke but none others will can (unless they send all they have , i doubt the laser can stop a much larger number ).

I see no reason to believe that this might happen.
Countries like the UK might consider it, but not the edgier ones.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:22 pm

James wrote:It sounds great, but there are countries which will not disarm. And even if those countries did 'disarm', they'd likely maintain a secret project or inventory to become re-armed at short notice.

Countries like the UK might consider it, but not the edgier ones.


Exactly -- to expect Iran or Russia to comply with this agreement would be overlooking the inevitable. Both countries have a stake in the 'shifting sands' of the cycle of power. Iran clearly wants to blow Israel off the face of the earth and Israel will not truly comply with the notion that giving up arms will cause peace or a 'peaceful' solution. Russia is not saint in regards to secret weapons creation.

The expectation is the same as telling a man to bend over and stand behind a horse. Besides the fact that the blackmarket activity will exponentially increase due to disarmament, you will have the secret labs and secret WMD's stashed by each country.

The current power struggle is like being in a NY subway station.

Everyone is crowded at the platform viing for position as to who will get on the train first.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Jordan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:41 pm

What I don't understand is how this matters as far as the United States' disarmament. Whether other countries would comply or not is clearly debatable. Personally, I think they'd be more likely to comply if the United States took the lead than if not. They may not comply either way, but at least if somebody took the lead, it would help the process along. Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but compare nuclear disarmament to slavery. Once Britain outlawed slavery in the 19th century, it set into motion a gradual global trend. The United States fought a war over it (partly, anyways: Yes I'm aware that states' rights and tariffs were also issues) that ultimately banned it. Other Western countries followed and only a few places still engaged in slavery, like East Africa under the Zanzibar sultans, by the end of the 19th century. Soon even they were compelled to end the practice.

And I don't understand what the benefit of the United States having nukes is to begin with. If we disarm our nukes, I really don't think that the countries with nukes are going to suddenly go, "HAHA, SUCKER" and start nuking the hell out of us "just because." So in the end, what is the drawback to nuclear disarmament? To me this is a much bigger issue than a lot of other crap that comes up in our politics, since potentially it has global repercussions for humanity as a whole, transcending mere national issues.

I think we could easily force Israel to give up their nukes personally. They rely on us extensively, to the point that they basically NEED the United States, especially amidst the hostile world climate. If several countries disarmed and we made clear our dissatisfaction with their arsenal, to the point where they would potentially be sanctioned, lose trade rights, financial aid and support from us, they would definitely not hold on to a bunch of nukes which, if used, would spell the doom of their country anyways.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:36 pm

That may be a bad analogy as slavery represented wealth more than power whereas nuclear weapons and armory represents power more than wealth. Though, you can look for a comparable between the two.

Honestly, I don't believe either way would resolve the situation at hand. Disarmament of the US or forcing Israel to disarm would do nothing more than cause other countries that won't comply to do what they want - some of the countries that agree with the US have already proven that they are not very active in pressing those countries to stop. By the way, Iran for one has already stated that they would bomb Israel and other countries behind their ideals would certainly help them in a war that becomes catacylismic upon their actions. Many countries are still very much so, pent up on the oil they are getting from certain countries - some of which will not comply with that idea. That is why I used the 'shifting sands' statement.

You could expect World War III to come sooner with that kind of action. As much as this country is in a financial downward spiral and how it depends on other countries just as powerful to hold it up, that is a bad idea. China (not pointing the finger but, they are our chief supplier for finance) doesn't necessarily hold the same ideals as this country when it comes to foreign relations and opportunistic methodology. Russia is on the fence, but would clearly side with Iran (this has been debatable for years) with the opportunity presents itself for them to be thrusted into the top power position. And to expect some of the other powers to step in would present the same issue that occurred with Germany twice - twittling fingers expecting the next country to step in.

As for doom being spelled for the countries of the non-compliant ones, that is why there is still nuclear weapons today and will be tomorrow.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Jordan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:07 pm

I don't see how nuclear weapons would prevent World War III. On the contrary, the only thing I think they would do is make a possible global conflict all the more devastating. I think nuclear weapons are something that people need to take a greater stand on in general. We shouldn't allow Iran to even think of building nuclear weapons, and on the same hand, we should disarm our own and work toward disarming them completely. What I again don't understand is how whether other countries comply with disarmament or not affects whether the US complies. What is the benefit of the US having nukes? I don't think there is a benefit to using nukes. On the contrary, I think it would be disastrous for the whole human race if nukes are used again. So then if there is no benefit to using them, why have them? If the US started seriously dismantling its arsenal, would there really be repercussions? Or would it be a foreign policy benefit? I personally lean toward the latter.

As for doom being spelled for the countries of the non-compliant ones, that is why there is still nuclear weapons today and will be tomorrow.


But that doesn't really make sense. As I understand it, Israel under Golda Meir started developing nuclear weapons to ensure their safety. Essentially they thought they were under dire threat and developed nukes in order to potentially save them from destruction. In the absolute worst case scenario, they would use the nukes to protect themselves. In this case, though, let us presume that the US disarms and at least a few Western European democracies follow. Then these countries present Israel with an ultimatum. Israel can either start disarming its arsenal or they could be sanctioned, no longer receive financial aid or support. All Israel has to do then is disarm its nukes, which realistically it no longer needs anyways. If Israel did not disarm its nukes, it would just be self-defeating. Israel would destroy itself and even if it acted obstinate at first, it would eventually atleast make some concessions. What could Israel seriously do? Nuke the United States and other countries beseeching disarmament? That would just bring ruin upon the country. Israel created nukes to be defensive, but if disarming them was necessary to ensure its continued protection (particularly because of how much it benefits from the United States' help), it would do so. It wouldn't just obstinately cling to weapons that provide it no actual use, because doing so would be tantamount to suicide, and that's the last thing that Israel wants. I trust Israel enough that I don't think they would nuke the United States, and for the most part would go along with the policies we set. In turn, we have helped them inestimably. It is at least partially a mutually beneficial relationship, or at least Israel benefits regardless. They aren't stupid enough to throw away such a lucrative arrangement simply in order to unleash nuclear holocaust upon the world.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:31 pm

I didn't state that having nuclear weapons would stop World War III, I simply stated that not having them (by some countries of course) would lead to it faster. I do believe this because, it will allow for more pressing of those who wish to use the power they refuse to give up. Iran is a prime example and simply wishing that they shouldn't be allowed to do what they are already doing is an argument we can beat around with a stick all day and night - as you said there is more to it than politics. Iran clearly stated what they will and or would do, and yet no one has really stopped them. We see alot of face value politics on advising them to stop but, there is no true impact. North Korea is also a wildcard in this regard though they are in transition of leadership and will be over the next few years.

I don't believe Israel would comply in the end. Israel believes strongly on entitlement and that is fact known in world politics and by simply reading the Bible or Talmud. Israel policies have moved away slightly from the face appearance of what is doctrinally proposed in either book I mentioned however, the politics they apply will be proportionally compliant and unless Iran is part of that agreement you can cancel any truly upheld policy to regard it. Iran will bomb Israel and Israel will disregard the agreement to fight back. We've seen this over and over again with Hamas and Hezbollah already.

You will also need leaders willing to do it, George Bush wasn't willing to do and Barack Obama isn't either. If the US really had the power to do it, it would be done - but it's not done therefore; shows where the true power lies and that's money. The government is well aware of the parameters that surround that and yet Iran still has everything it needs to get the job done and its funny how North Korea disappears and reappears in the conversation when necessary for media purposes.

You proposition a wonderful idea but, it would hardly lift off the ground due to greed and the need for power on all ends.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Jordan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:52 pm

This may be a little bit of a logical leap of faith, but hear me out on this. Let us say that we do not disarm. In that case, I still think that the lunatics in power might still try to develop and use nuclear weapons. So ultimately, not disarming our weapons wouldn't have prevented catastrophe one way or another. Disarming our weapons though, I believe, can only potentially bring benefit. Maybe it won't result in anything honestly. But maybe it might. I do not think being apathetic on the issue by stating "Well it's pointless anyways" will solve the problem.

And then whether it leads to concessions by other countries or not, I still don't see why the US needs nukes. Seriously, why? I really pray that the US doesn't need them because it seriously hopes to use them again. And I don't think that if we disarmed, that alone would expedite World War III. I think rather it would be seen as a gracious act by the global community...
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: Nuclear Disarmament

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm

Don't misunderstand, I totally agree with your principles on the matter but, I can't say that I believe that that would happen. There would have to be a reshaping of foreign relations and overall world perspective for that to occur. The United States does not need nukes in the general sense however; seeing as other countries will not comply - it would be an open season for attacks. Then what would happen next?

The country wouldn't conform to that and if it did for face value there would be some secret weapon waiting for that just in case. How many of the other countries that agree in the same on the surface will do the same? I believe most if not all. There is no trust and greed prevails.

It's a beautiful dream but one not too marketable to the current circumstances. I agree with you in merit, but I don't believe it can be manned or woman-ed by those currently in power.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved