Have Nuclear Powers Moved Toward Disarmament Since Signing The NPT?

[jankren]

Im just wondering, how much the nuclear powers have so far showed their commitment to disarming themselves in accordance to the NPT?

[roy34543]

Id say in one way the NPT is quite an amazing feat.
Not really because of the disarmament achieved, but because you would expect every country to want a nuclear weapon, since they can basically get rid of their entire military and replace it with missiles. Instead very few countries have managed to get nuclear weapons, and even fewer that dont have one want one.

[removeduser_052420]

Id say in one way the NPT is quite an amazing feat.
Not really because of the disarmament achieved, but because you would expect every country to want a nuclear weapon, since they can basically get rid of their entire military and replace it with missiles. Instead very few countries have managed to get nuclear weapons, and even fewer that dont have one want one.

This is true.

[Farnan]

Im just wondering, how much the nuclear powers have so far showed their commitment to disarming themselves in accordance to the NPT?

According to wiki, since START began there are 80% less deployed nuclear weapons in the world.

[jankren]

According to wiki, since START began there are 80% less deployed nuclear weapons in the world.

What is deployed nuclear weapon? Is it the same as nuclear warhead?

So basically since the NPT was created nuclear powers have stopped producing nukes or what? I dont get it.

Id say in one way the NPT is quite an amazing feat.
Not really because of the disarmament achieved, but because you would expect every country to want a nuclear weapon, since they can basically get rid of their entire military and replace it with missiles. Instead very few countries have managed to get nuclear weapons, and even fewer that dont have one want one.

The effect of the NPT on the nuclear have nots is clear, but my question is regarding the other side of the bargain which are the nuclear haves.

[Red_legged_devils]

Not at all, There now upgradening there old stock and the non nuke powers are now getting them....

[Farnan]

What is deployed nuclear weapon? Is it the same as nuclear warhead?

That means the warheads are in storage and are no longer ready to be fired without some hard work.

[Exarch]

an ABM system would nullify nukes, theoretically.

[removeduser_052420]

Each country should get one nuke so everyone would be equal, and then Somalia should get 15 to equal everything out. jus' sayin.

Lol wtf?

[removeduser_052420]

Look, if each country had a nuke then nobody would want to mess with anyone else, and Somalia needs to have the most to protect it's natural resources and bustling economy.

O.....kay......

O_o

[the_mango55]

Each country should get one nuke so everyone would be equal,

Look, if each country had a nuke then nobody would want to mess with anyone else,

Nope, it's standard nuclear strategy to use your nukes to take out their nukes.

So if I wanted to invade and we both had 1 nuke I would use my nuke on your silo and then invade.

[Jingles]

Comrade hfm calls for the wholesale re-distribution of nukes for a fairer society.

Priceless.

[Pickle_mole]

Comrade hfm calls for the wholesale re-distribution of nukes for a fairer society.

Priceless.

Its communism!

[Jingles]

Its communism!

It's BS.

[Sphere]

Not really because of the disarmament achieved, but because you would expect every country to want a nuclear weapon, since they can basically get rid of their entire military and replace it with missiles.

I think what has been shown in the past ~60 years is that nuclear weapons have no such effect. A nuclear arsenal is not a replacement for conventional forces because a nuclear arsenal is not used in 99.9% of conflicts. Border disputes, proxy-wars, civil wars, counter-terrorism are still going to occur and if you abandon a conventional military, your are going to lose these conflicts.

[Boer]

Nuclear weapons have been reduced, but I doubt any country will reduce them below the point where they can destroy the world, and have some spares for when others need repair/upgrading. It has never made since to me why some country need enough nukes to destroy the world 5 times over. Wouldn't the last 4/5ths be wasted?

[Sidmen]

Nuclear weapons have been reduced, but I doubt any country will reduce them below the point where they can destroy the world, and have some spares for when others need repair/upgrading. It has never made since to me why some country need enough nukes to destroy the world 5 times over. Wouldn't the last 4/5ths be wasted?

What would happen if 80% of your missiles were knocked out of the sky mid-flight?

You wouldn't get to kill the world if you didn't have 5x what you needed, and that would just be a shame.


Anyway... Yes, we have stopped building lots of nukes since the treaty was signed, and we have been dismantling the bombs... slowly, because it costs a lot to do it.

[Boer]

What would happen if 80% of your missiles were knocked out of the sky mid-flight?

Does anyone have a missile shield capable of such a feat? Anyone close to having one?

[Desperado †]

[Jom]

I'm looking forward to a world that is, if not nuclear free, then virtually so. The amount of money freed up by the abandonment of nuclear programs could be diverted into much more important areas of the economy such as education and welfare.

Having said that, however, all the nuclear powers are still somewhat edgy about abandoning their arsenals completely but I believe that the US should be lauded for helping to lead the way. Perhaps this will mean the UK will stop wasting billions on Trident.