Limiting Nuclear Proliferation [Time Commander Bob vs Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

[Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

Time Commander Bob pro.
Qymaen Jai Sheelal con.

I'm against the idea not because I think its right or great but because this has been already introduced to the world and making it illegal will only make it worse because it won't stop terrorists and illegal organizations from using them but instead gives them the advantage.

War is not a good thing but at times it happens and this can't be stoped and what if a world war 3 happens and what if the enemy decides to play dirty and build nuclear weapons while we just sit there.

War is much more complicated then that as are the things around it.
Throwing it away will not fix it. It will only make things worse.

Not all scars can be healed.

----

Link to Commentary thread

[Time Commander Bob]

The main reason I am for limiting nuclear proliferation and eventual nuclear disarmament is that there exist countries in the world which are either politically unstable or entirely untrustworthy. I accept that it would be impossible for every nuclear state to simply throw away its stockpiles overnight.

Even though you did not argue such a case in your opening post, it has often been said that the nuclear weapon stockpiles that the USA and the USSR had prevented a large scale conventional and nuclear war. Perhaps, but this did not stop either power interfering with other countries. It is impossible to say what the cold war would have been like without nuclear weapons. However, one does need to consider that MAD may not always work.
The clearest example for this is in the case of a mis-reading, accident or uncertainty. For example, in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis a Soviet submarine armed with nuclear warheads was depth-charged by above US destroyers wanting the submarine to identify itself. This led to some of the crew thinking that war had already broken out, but luckily the captain kept his calm. Another example would be in 1983 where a soviet military computer system "detected" US ICBMs heading towards Russia Stanislav Petrov fortunately noticed it was a false alarm as the system was broken.
I think that one has to remember that a nuclear war between the US and the USSR would be worse than every single conventional war combined. That such an event could have happened accidentally is frightening to say the least. Given this, one has to have more foresight to realise that a conventional war may be worse than the eventuality of a nuclear war, even though such weapons could prevent several such conventional wars.

this has been already introduced to the world

It has, but 3 (or 4 if you consider North Korea) nuclear powers; India, Pakistan and Israel refused to sign the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and only North Korea suffered any consequences from doing so. The only success for nuclear disarmament has been for reducing the USA's and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

it won't stop terrorists and illegal organizations from using them

Would allowing nuclear weapons to freely spread across the globe stop the terrorists though? Allowing particularly unstable states (as stated at the start) to have nukes could allow terrorists the otherwise unavailable opportunity to acquire such a weapon, as there are generally more terrorists in an unstable nation.

War is not a good thing but at times it happens and this can't be stoped and what if a world war 3 happens and what if the enemy decides to play dirty and build nuclear weapons while we just sit there.

This perhaps is the most convincing case as it is a reason why a lot of disarmament conferences for conventional weapons after World War I failed. Why disarm when there exist dangerous countries armed to the teeth?
However, that is not to say it is impossible, country A could make an agreement with country B to disarm x amount of nuclear weapons each and the UN (which I admit does have to be stronger and more focused on action rather than just talking) will oversee that this indeed does happen. This is why any nuclear disarmament in practicality would have to be gradual.

As for a state secretly developing nuclear weapons during wartime for intended use, I agree that would be hard to stop which is why total nuclear disarmament is a hard goal to achieve.

[Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

Though out time there have been many men like Hitler. hundreds. And I'm sure no matter how much we like his many more will rise and fall and as I already mentioned some or perhaps all will "like Hitler" play dirty. If they build nuclear weapons will we then? wouldn't it be better to already have them by our sides so that when the time comes we can deal with a threat in an instant so that no innocent lives are lost?

Chivalry no longer exists theres no reason for your enemy to not kill the harmless and weak but with nuclear weapons there is away of making sure they don't get the chance.

The main reason I am for limiting nuclear proliferation and eventual nuclear disarmament is that there exist countries in the world which are either politically unstable or entirely untrustworthy. I accept that it would be impossible for every nuclear state to simply throw away its stockpiles overnight.

This is my point you say yourself. "there exist countries in the world which are either politically unstable or entirely untrustworthy" Does this not mean they can not be trusted to not build nuclear weapons?

Even though you did not argue such a case in your opening post, it has often been said that the nuclear weapon stockpiles that the USA and the USSR had prevented a large scale conventional and nuclear war. Perhaps, but this did not stop either power interfering with other countries. It is impossible to say what the cold war would have been like without nuclear weapons. However, one does need to consider that MAD may not always work.

Yes I agree that nuclear weapons are wrong but we introduced them to the world we can't just take them back again hoping that everyone will in time forget.
Its a dangerous balance
But its hold the world together.

It has, but 3 (or 4 if you consider North Korea) nuclear powers; India, Pakistan and Israel refused to sign the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and only North Korea suffered any consequences from doing so. The only success for nuclear disarmament has been for reducing the USA's and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

And who shall begin to disarm. No country is so foolish to do this when other still have them.

Would allowing nuclear weapons to freely spread across the globe stop the terrorists though? Allowing particularly unstable states (as stated at the start) to have nukes could allow terrorists the otherwise unavailable opportunity to acquire such a weapon, as there are generally more terrorists in an unstable nation.

Disarming will not make these country stable infact it could just do the opposite.

While we disarm they remain unstable and still have the means to create nuclear weapons (something we can not remove) How does this make it better for us? or anyone for that matter.

This is why any nuclear disarmament in practicality would have to be gradual.

So while some disarm others don't. giving more power to some nations and removing it from others creating unstability leading the way to war. not just war but one where one side is more powerful then the other.

As for a state secretly developing nuclear weapons during wartime for intended use, I agree that would be hard to stop which is why total nuclear disarmament is a hard goal to achieve.

And a dangerous one might I add.

I hope you begining to see what kind of affect this could give the world.

[Time Commander Bob]

Though out time there have been many men like Hitler. hundreds. And I'm sure no matter how much we like his many more will rise and fall and as I already mentioned some or perhaps all will "like Hitler" play dirty.

Agreed.

If they build nuclear weapons will we then? wouldn't it be better to already have them by our sides so that when the time comes we can deal with a threat in an instant so that no innocent lives are lost?

However, such villains may not have much regard to the lives of their own citizens and may risk a brief nuclear exchange, despite the opposing side having nuclear weapons as well. Such a tyrant could make his own whereabouts unknown and hide in fallout bunker if he was that intent on using nuclear weapons. Hitler is such a fitting example of this as he stayed in a shelter in Berlin undeterred by the allies bombing major German cities. Such evil people may not acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent and they may not use the MAD doctrine.

Here is another example of how a nuclear strike could occur when both sides have nuclear armaments. Say country A and B are both rivals, have had conventional wars in the past and both have nuclear weapons poised to strike at each other which apparently "keep the peace". Lets suppose that country A is a reasonable, honourable country that only seeks peace but nevertheless cannot stand country B as it is known to be an unreasonable country known to use dirty tactics and intimidate its neighbours. However, the citizens in country B are not evil and many feel oppressed by the current regime (just like German citizens during WW2 were not all evil even when its government was). Suppose that country B also secretly supports terrorist organisations whose wish it is to kill the citizens of country A. This terrorist organisation is now able to deliver a nuclear strike to the heart of country A if country B secretly supplies it with a nuclear weapon. Country A would get nuked and be unable to respond, even if they did find out that country B was ultimately responsible as such a response would mean that country B would be able to unleash the rest of its nuclear arsenal onto country A, not to mention such a response strike would cause millions of innocent deaths of civilians in country B that were not responsible.

Its a dangerous balance
But its hold the world together.

I do not think it is a balance that can hold forever, for reasons stated above such as accidents and if countries supply such weapons to terrorists. Not to mention it also allows governments to use its own citizens as a shield.

And who shall begin to disarm. No country is so foolish to do this when other still have them.

Which is why both countries would make a mutual agreement to disarm which would be overseen by the UN with inspectors to make sure that such disarmament steps were taking place. Arms races are usually between two states or two alliances of states. For example, Pakistan does not worry how many nukes France has, but how many India has. Both countries also have something to gain from disarmament too, it means they can spend less on nuclear weapons and more on improving what actually matters to the citizens in those said countries, such as education, healthcare and public works.

While we disarm they remain unstable and still have the means to create nuclear weapons (something we can not remove) How does this make it better for us? or anyone for that matter.

Because it gives such unstable countries an excuse to build nuclear weapons. If western countries have them, why can't we? Countries of lesser influence tend to follow the main powers on major policies (though there are exceptions) so it would give them one less reason to build them. Especially if said unstable country feels threatened by a current nuclear power. It cuts away the reason, making it entirely internationally unacceptable. And in an increasingly globalised and interdependent world, an isolated country would fare poorly.

Given the potential dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people, I think it is reasonable therefore to pursue a policy to first completely halt nuclear proliferation with the backing of a strong United Nations at whatever means possible, so long as it does not include the very manufacture of nuclear weapons itself. Then the conditions will be right for eventual large-scale disarmament.

[Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

Agreed.
However, such villains may not have much regard to the lives of their own citizens and may risk a brief nuclear exchange, despite the opposing side having nuclear weapons as well.

Yes but can you see just worse his would be if the villains are the only to have nuclear weapons we would be unprepared and may not even have bunkers to protect ourselves making it even more likely for the other side attack.

Here is another example of how a nuclear strike could occur when both sides have nuclear armaments. Say country A and B are both rivals, have had conventional wars in the past and both have nuclear weapons poised to strike at each other which apparently "keep the peace". Lets suppose that country A is a reasonable, honourable country that only seeks peace but nevertheless cannot stand country B as it is known to be an unreasonable country known to use dirty tactics and intimidate its neighbours. However, the citizens in country B are not evil and many feel oppressed by the current regime (just like German citizens during WW2 were not all evil even when its government was). Suppose that country B also secretly supports terrorist organisations whose wish it is to kill the citizens of country A. This terrorist organisation is now able to deliver a nuclear strike to the heart of country A if country B secretly supplies it with a nuclear weapon. Country A would get nuked and be unable to respond, even if they did find out that country B was ultimately responsible as such a response would mean that country B would be able to unleash the rest of its nuclear arsenal onto country A, not to mention such a response strike would cause millions of innocent deaths of civilians in country B that were not responsible.

Such things will happen as thing will happen with out them but look at WW2 if there was no nuclear weapons the war would of gone for many more years and no doubt Australia and NZ would be Japanese.

I do not think it is a balance that can hold forever, for reasons stated above such as accidents and if countries supply such weapons to terrorists. Not to mention it also allows governments to use its own citizens as a shield.

And how many war happened with out them war will not go away and there has been many times where nuclear weapons have put an end to war.

Which is why both countries would make a mutual agreement to disarm which would be overseen by the UN with inspectors to make sure that such disarmament steps were taking place. Arms races are usually between two states or two alliances of states. For example, Pakistan does not worry how many nukes France has, but how many India has. Both countries also have something to gain from disarmament too, it means they can spend less on nuclear weapons and more on improving what actually matters to the citizens in those said countries, such as education, healthcare and public works.

Two countrys will disarm but not all do you not think this will give others the chance to charge in and conquer.

Countries of lesser influence tend to follow the main powers on major policies.

Yes but in time many countrys walk away from it and start there own policies.

Given the potential dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people, I think it is reasonable therefore to pursue a policy to first completely halt nuclear proliferation with the backing of a strong United Nations at whatever means possible, so long as it does not include the very manufacture of nuclear weapons itself. Then the conditions will be right for eventual large-scale disarmament.

There is no easer or even hard way of doing what you say not all countrys will disarm just because the UN asks them to. (with lots of pleases and thank you's might I add)

[Time Commander Bob]

Yes but can you see just worse his would be if the villains are the only to have nuclear weapons we would be unprepared and may not even have bunkers to protect ourselves making it even more likely for the other side attack.

You would be correct in suggesting that facing such a villain would be harder if they had nuclear weapons than if they did not, though my point was that it is more preferable for neither side to have nuclear weapons than both because like I said earlier, such people are likely to care little for the lives of their own citizens or may be willing to make such a sacrifice if more lives are lost on the other side. This more preferable scenario is difficult to achieve without a strong international community that can act decisively, but I hold the firm belief that given enough time, it is an achievable and worthwhile goal to pursue. Why? Because most leaders desire peace and as stated earlier would rather spend their budget on other things more desirable to the public especially as such leaders are democratically elected. Nukes aren't cheap.

Such things will happen as thing will happen with out them but look at WW2 if there was no nuclear weapons the war would of gone for many more years and no doubt Australia and NZ would be Japanese.

Firstly, Japan's armed forces were severely crippled by 1945 and even if the USA did not drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki there is no way Japan could ever invade Australia or New Zealand. The nuclear bombings were used to speed up the war's end and by how much it did is debatable yet irrelevant to this discussion as is in no way comparable to nuclear strategy and weapons today.
Nuclear weapons today are several tens, some hundreds or thousands of times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima, even the ones owned by "non-western" countries such as Pakistan. Furthermore, when the USA nuked Hiroshima, it was the only state to have nuclear weapons so there were no potential consequences from other nuclear states because there weren't any.

And how many war happened with out them war will not go away and there has been many times where nuclear weapons have put an end to war.

You do realise that India and Pakistan had a conventional war whilst both states owned nuclear weapons? Also could you list some examples of the situations you have described above?

Two countrys will disarm but not all do you not think this will give others the chance to charge in and conquer.

Not really as countries with nuclear weapons also have strong conventional forces. Lets suppose that Israel got rid of all its nuclear weapons. Would the middle east invade it? Highly unlikely given that the IDF is modern and quite strong, not to mention that it has support of several western nations.

There is no easer or even hard way of doing what you say not all countrys will disarm just because the UN asks them to. (with lots of pleases and thank you's might I add)

I agree that the UN is currently too weak currently which is why I support a strong UN which would force countries to stop developing nuclear weapons if they refused through sanctions that actually worked (there are several commodities countries cannot survive without and no developed or even developing country is self sufficient). If things got worse then disarmament would have to be enforced. For this to work certain UN parts would have to be more independent entities so the country in question would have nothing to "strike back" against.
However, this is a discussion about nuclear weapons and not the UN so I will not discuss how this would work further. My point is that it is possible goal provided the conditions are right and if they aren't, why not make it so?