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

[Senno]

Place your comments on the above debate here.

Link to Debate thread.

[Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

nice.

whos the best out of us!

[Shi Huangdi]

Removing nuclear weapons is like getting rid of the death penalty. It leaves no deterrent.

Were it not for nuclear weapons, for instance, there would almost certainly have been a major world war between the USA and her allies and the USSR and her allies. In fact, nuclear weapons have proven to be a force for peace in the world--so far. They ended WW2. They kept the Cold War from turning into WW3.

Unfortunately, though, as rogue nations gain access to nukes, they will probably become a real threat and anything but an aid to peace.

[Musthavename]

Removing nuclear weapons is like getting rid of the death penalty. It leaves no deterrent.

You can't compare them like that. A lot of crimes are done immediatly. People don't contemplate the deterrent because it's immediate. If there's a bloke who hates his wife, and she annoys the crap out of him, he'd likely just grab a knife and stab her immediatly, rather than think "hmm, I'm going to be be put to death, so i won't", or "I won't be put to death, so I will". Likewise, how is spending your life imprisoned not a deterrent?

Point is, it's basic game theory. Let's classify countries as wanting them for peace, and wanting them for war. To start a nuclear war, you only need have one country that wishes for it, and they could fire them.

Now, if he wishes to fire them, and he knows other countries have nukes, that nation will probably value it's own lives, and not fire. Ofcourse, if it was run by a lunatic dictator who didn't care, he would fire. However, let's look at the situation when no other country has nuclear weapons. He fires anyway.

So basically, no nuclear weapons means one person gets them, and the world's buggered. Having them means if one person more gets them, unless they're completely insane, then we're safe. Thing is, you can never completely trust ALL nations to never do some underground research and make the things! As far as I'm concerned, let all these Iran's, N.Korea's and whatnot have nukes. They're not going to fire them or they'll screw themselves over, so what's the problem? Who would Iran target for example. Primarily Israel. Oh wait, they have nuclear weapons, and they'd take the entire middle east down with them if they were attacked!

[Xiaodun]

Removing nuclear weapons is like getting rid of the death penalty. It leaves no deterrent.

Considering that

1. It is becoming hard for major nations (the kind that might possess nuclear weaponry) to use war as a diplomatic weapon because of the increasing dependence of their economies on ties with each other.

2. The threat of nuclear war was not enough to deter proxy wars of the US and the USSR during the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, Invasion of Afghanistan) or military excursions like the recent invasion of Georgia.

3. The military capacity of the "rogue states" are so infinitesimal compared to that of the major nations that might get involved in a hypothetical conflict that conventional military strength is itself a deterrent.

I find the "deterrent" argument unpersuasive.

So basically, no nuclear weapons means one person gets them, and the world's buggered. Having them means if one person more gets them, unless they're completely insane, then we're safe.

You're assuming that only states would be able to get a hand on nuclear weapons. But the more nuclear technology proliferates, the easier it is for non-state actors to get a hold of them (by either screw-ups or direct assistance by treacherous nations). The sheer thought of WMDs in the hands of terrorists has me shaking in my boots.

[Mangalore]

Given that it took all but 2 posts to mention Hitler (shouldn't that lead to an immediate disqualification? ) I find it worthwhile to note that both the Soviets under Stalin as well as Hitler and the Wehrmacht refrained from deploying poison gas at the Eastern front for the fear of retaliation. Both sides knew how to build those shells, both sides knew the other side knew how to build those shells and the end result was that both sides found it a waste of ressources for the military machine to change to this kind of warfare.

In a way the dormant capacity to build nukes is enough to dissuade another country to suggest bringing this into the equation. In fact the socalled rogue states seem to be more worried about an conventional attack than getting the nuke for offensive action.

Removing nuclear weapons is like getting rid of the death penalty. It leaves no deterrent.

Any intel that the death penalty works as a deterrent? So far studies and statistics seem to contradict this reasoning because the existance or application of capital punishment doesn't seem to influence the murder rates at all.

[Viking Prince]

Given that it took all but 2 posts to mention Hitler (shouldn't that lead to an immediate disqualification? ) I find it worthwhile to note that both the Soviets under Stalin as well as Hitler and the Wehrmacht refrained from deploying poison gas at the Eastern front for the fear of retaliation. Both sides knew how to build those shells, both sides knew the other side knew how to build those shells and the end result was that both sides found it a waste of ressources for the military machine to change to this kind of warfare.

In a way the dormant capacity to build nukes is enough to dissuade another country to suggest bringing this into the equation. In fact the socalled rogue states seem to be more worried about an conventional attack than getting the nuke for offensive action.



Any intel that the death penalty works as a deterrent? So far studies and statistics seem to contradict this reasoning because the existance or application of capital punishment doesn't seem to influence the murder rates at all.

Well, actually both the Russians and the Germans were prepared to use gas -- but only if it was going to be decisive. Deterrents do work, but only up to a point. Just like to question of a successful first strike in a nuclear war.

[Mangalore]

Well, actually both the Russians and the Germans were prepared to use gas -- but only if it was going to be decisive. Deterrents do work, but only up to a point. Just like to question of a successful first strike in a nuclear war.

Well, the problem was: How could it have been deceisive given the kind of mobile battlefield that had developed?

Otherwise I guess one could argue that gas is a rather overrated WMD as its actual killing power can be achieved with conventional shells and dynamite just the same.

[Viking Prince]

Well, the problem was: How could it have been deceisive given the kind of mobile battlefield that had developed?

Otherwise I guess one could argue that gas is a rather overrated WMD as its actual killing power can be achieved with conventional shells and dynamite just the same.

If there was a situation on a broader scale such as multiple urban areas like Stalingrad or perhaps in the waning days as the Russians marched on Germany -- there is always the potential for a master stroke. Also in the west -- the German attempt to cut of most of the offensive drive in what we call the Battle of the Bulge. Remember -- the one side only needs to believe it will (or if true desperation sets in -- may) be decisive