Nuclear Proliferation: More May Be Better

[Nationalist_Cause]

I stole the title of my thread from a book I've been reading titled The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz. The following quotes I provide are a few of Waltz's arguments.

The basic premise of Waltz's arguments is that nuclear proliferation, though not necessarily desirable, isn't the recipe for world destruction either. Since nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to aggressive military action we can expect that such actions will become increasingly rare. As Waltz points out, nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon, not a defensive one. Nuclear weapons cannot defend anything, but allow a state to inflict heavy retaliatory punishment on another after an attack has begun. Waltz argues that the presence of nuclear weapons among the most powerful nations in the post WWII world explains the relative peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or China, or the European democracies and the Soviet Union. Why fight if you can't win much and might lose everything?

The deterrent deployment of nuclear weapons contributes more to a country's security than does conquest of territory. A country with a deterrent strategy does not need as much territory as a country relying on conventional defense. A deterrent strategy makes it unnecessary for a country to fight for the sake of increasing its security, and thus removes a major cause of war.

Uncertainty about outcomes does not work decisively against the fighting of wars in conventional worlds. Countries armed with conventional weapons go to war knowing that even in defeat their suffering will be limited. Calculations about nuclear war are made differently. A nuclear world calls for a different kind of reasoning. If countries armed with nuclear weapons go to war with each other, they do so knowing that their suffering may be unlimited. Of course, it also may not be, but that is not the kind of uncertainty that encourages anyone to use force.

Consider these thoughts carefully. I'm sure I'll see many of the "but we can't let the Islamic nuts have them" posts, and I'm prepared. But I hope to see more well thought out responses.

[hsimoorb]

The more countries have nukes, the more MAD countries there will be. The more likely that someone will panic and push the button. The greater loss of life there will be if(when?) it happens. At least in the cold war there was a chance the war would end early, and that the countries that didn't get shell-shocked wouldn't get covered in glowing ooze.

Nomatter what they say, more small wars are much better than nuclear winter. Heck, when you consider the arsenal the U.S. is sitting on a conventional WWIII is all you could possible ask for.

And anyways, the more smaller countries have nuclear weapons, the harder it will be for forces like the U.N. to enforce human rights. Because nuclear countries are pretty much impossible to occupy. Suddenly there is no global police force and somecracked up dictator in equador can **** on thier subject and all the rest of the world can do is watch from a bomb shelter.

Also, nuclear weapons are a prime reson why people want biological weapons. You can blow up a nuke, but not bacteria. Nuclear nations wil eventualy become armed with even more nasty biological weapons. And of coarse, people don't even have to press the button to unleash these kind of things. Somebody leaves the lab with a few thousand spores of these and our overpopulation probles are as good as solved.

The upside to nuclear proliferation is a logical fallicy, plain and simple.

[mischief]

i would heartily recommend that you watch 'the Fog of War', if you are interested in this subject.

Robert McNamara, the defence secretary during the cuban missile crisis, has very interesting things to say.
later on it has become clear that the USSR had operative nuclear missiles in Cuba. America was very very close to ordering a full invasion

According to McNamara, at this conference he found Castro had given the order to launch Nukes in the event of an attack. If that had happened...

And this wasn't a bunch of extremist nutters. this was 3 rational individuals.

We shouldn't assume that rationality will stop nuclear war. it is the logic of war to exploit every resource. and nuclear weapons are a resource.
they will be used again, and though in the short term they may create the sort of stability the author here suggests, the consequences of a breaking of this equilibrium are frightening.

so i can't agree with his premise here.

[mischief]

But in your scenario, the threat of nuclear war depended on perfect knowledge. In this case the US didn't believe that the Cuban missiles were operative. This assumption came very close.

A serious group within the US administration wanted to invade, and came close to persuading JFK to do it. they didn't beleive they would be attacked. rational expectations depend on good information. In war, we always try to conceal our intentions from our enemy.

As i say, watch the Fog of war... It puts the point far better than i do.

[Nationalist_Cause]

But in your scenario, the threat of nuclear war depended on perfect knowledge. In this case the US didn't believe that the Cuban missiles were operative. This assumption came very close.

A serious group within the US administration wanted to invade, and came close to persuading JFK to do it. they didn't beleive they would be attacked. rational expectations depend on good information. In war, we always try to conceal our intentions from our enemy.

As i say, watch the Fog of war... It puts the point far better than i do.

As you correctly observe, perfect knowledge is never had by policy makers. But leaders at that time did know with certainty that an invasion of Cuba meant a Soviet invasion of Europe. That would set off a chain of reactions: nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union and nuclear retaliation by the Soviets on Europeans allies. This was more than U.S. policymakers were willing to risk. Indeed, there were hawks surrounding JFK at the time who pressed for military action. But the threat of nuclear holocaust was cause enough for cooler heads to prevail. It didn't matter whether the missiles stationed in Cuba were operational or not because the ones in the U.S.S.R. were, and they could strike Europe with impunity.

I still disagree with you. We wouldn't risk the city of London anymore than we would risk the loss of New York. We knew the consequences of a Cuban invasion and it was, thank God, averted. All due to nuclear deterrence.

[mischief]

in this specific case i don't think it's unreasonable to agree to disagree! You put a good case forward. Our cases only differ by a small ammount, really. I think the only point we really differ is that I believe a rational individual can order the use of nuclear weapons.

But this minor difference is perhaps moot to the this thread. The US is a powerful country with a relatively long tradition of stability. The writer at the top of the thread suggests that more countries with nuclear weapons might not be so bad...

I disagree.
In a less stable country than the US, would the bay of pigs have come out this way?

All military commanders make mistakes. All military commanders kill unecessarily...
If you combine faulty human fallibility with nuclear weapons, then one mistake can destroy countries.

So i still think believing further spread of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

and at this point i think i'm going to go and try to close pandoras box....

[Nationalist_Cause]

Nomatter what they say, more small wars are much better than nuclear winter. Heck, when you consider the arsenal the U.S. is sitting on a conventional WWIII is all you could possible ask for.

Indeed, low intensity conflicts will always exist. If they don't occur between states they will occur within them. Nuclear weapons, in the context I'm talking about, aren't intended to prevent these conflicts. They are intended to prevent high intensity conflicts between the great powers which would escalate into another world war. These are the types of conflicts which produce the most devestating losses in materials and human life. Such a conflict has not occurred since the demonstration of nuclear efficacy in WWII. One could theorize that nuclear weapons will minimize the chances of another such conflict in the future.

i would heartily recommend that you watch 'the Fog of War', if you are interested in this subject.

Robert McNamara, the defence secretary during the cuban missile crisis, has very interesting things to say.
later on it has become clear that the USSR had operative nuclear missiles in Cuba. America was very very close to ordering a full invasion

According to McNamara, at this conference he found Castro had given the order to launch Nukes in the event of an attack. If that had happened...

And this wasn't a bunch of extremist nutters. this was 3 rational individuals.

We shouldn't assume that rationality will stop nuclear war. it is the logic of war to exploit every resource. and nuclear weapons are a resource.
they will be used again, and though in the short term they may create the sort of stability the author here suggests, the consequences of a breaking of this equilibrium are frightening.

so i can't agree with his premise here.

You are correct. The world came very close to annhilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I would argue that the threat of nuclear holocaust was enough to prevent an invasion of Cuba. The threat of nuclear destruction moderated the actions of the U.S. and kept us from initiating war against the Soviet Union. Had no nuclear weapons existed at the end of WWII in Europe, it is more likely (though nobody can say with any certainty, I admit) that the two great superpowers would have engaged in another world war.

Merged double post, please use the edit button whenever you want to add something-Valus

[GORE]

well, if every nation has nuclear weapons it only increases the chances of a nuclear war starting, which would be the end of the world as we know it. but as a deterant the effectiveness of a nuclear reponse is the ace up any nations sleeve. as for all nations becoming nuclear and ending all wars, i doubt that, it would lead to another cold war of 'i have more nukes than you do'. and unlike the soviets and USA, some nations would be more inclined to use them.

[invictus]

I say we apply the principle that if we let this nuclear momentum build up, it will erupt into a larger scale war. Imagine, like a forest fire, if we simply let the fires burn naturally as they start (assuming a human didnt start it), then the old woods would be replaced by newer ones. Thus such an event as the california fires, would be avoided. Now applying this to nuclear weapons, if one or 2 minor countries use them on each other, the world will see how they really are, and demand their disarmament, thats 1 scenario. Another might be that the world will simply ignore them, and continue along its marry way. It is nto as bad as peopel thin, they simply dont look at all sides. -Leon

[The Fish]

It is important to take into account the specifics of the country that has the nuclear weapons, in determining the likelihood of that country using nucelar weapons. Countries like the US, Russia, China, and India can be counted on to use nukes only in a completely last-ditch effort; indeed, it is likely that the ONLY situation in which they would use nukes would be in a retaliatory second-strike scenario (in which case, bye bye world). This is because their conventional forces and geography provide them with incredible security to their sovereignity; no country can invade America and destroy its government conventionally. Likewise, China, Russia, and India have such strong militaries that it would be basically impossible for a foreign country to occupy large parts of their territory and threaten their existence (even the US, though it could probably defeat the militaries of these countries, could never occupy them). Thus, these countries would be very reluctant to release the nuclear genie in a first-strike scenario; their conventional strength would make doing so an insane action.

Countries with relatively weaker conventional forces, though, are a different story. A country like Pakistan, which suffers from a much weaker conventional military than India (its likely adversary in a conflict), would be far more likely to use nukes as a first-strike, in an effort to protect its sovereignity. Likewise, Iran and North Korea, which could theoretically be completely defeated in a conventional war with the US, are scrambling to get the bomb in order to hold a threat to the CONVENTIONAL forces of another nation. The salient details that must be considered in determining "is it okay for country X to have nuclear weapons," then, depend greatly on the particular geopolitical and military situation of that country. It is very difficult, at least in my view, to make as blanket a statement as "More nukes are better," or "More nukes are worse."

[Tiwaz]

It is important to take into account the specifics of the country that has the nuclear weapons, in determining the likelihood of that country using nucelar weapons. Countries like the US, Russia, China, and India can be counted on to use nukes only in a completely last-ditch effort; indeed, it is likely that the ONLY situation in which they would use nukes would be in a retaliatory second-strike scenario (in which case, bye bye world). This is because their conventional forces and geography provide them with incredible security to their sovereignity; no country can invade America and destroy its government conventionally. Likewise, China, Russia, and India have such strong militaries that it would be basically impossible for a foreign country to occupy large parts of their territory and threaten their existence (even the US, though it could probably defeat the militaries of these countries, could never occupy them). Thus, these countries would be very reluctant to release the nuclear genie in a first-strike scenario; their conventional strength would make doing so an insane action.

Countries with relatively weaker conventional forces, though, are a different story. A country like Pakistan, which suffers from a much weaker conventional military than India (its likely adversary in a conflict), would be far more likely to use nukes as a first-strike, in an effort to protect its sovereignity. Likewise, Iran and North Korea, which could theoretically be completely defeated in a conventional war with the US, are scrambling to get the bomb in order to hold a threat to the CONVENTIONAL forces of another nation. The salient details that must be considered in determining "is it okay for country X to have nuclear weapons," then, depend greatly on the particular geopolitical and military situation of that country. It is very difficult, at least in my view, to make as blanket a statement as "More nukes are better," or "More nukes are worse."

Pakistan would NEVER fire first nuke. Neither would any other nation, because they would not need to.
Nation which openly has nukes is safe from invasion and thus can enjoy protection of nuclear ability. At the same time they know they cannot use their nuclear weapons without worry since others obtain enough weapons to annihilate them if they try to invade neighbours using nukes.

If Iraq would have had nukes and they would have been open about it there wouldn't be war in ME right now. USA would not have invaded and thus whole incident would have been avoided. Neither would Iraq invade Iran using nukes because it would not be viewed favourably by other nations.

There is no leader in the world who is crazy enough to use nukes unprovoked. And there is no leader in the world stupid enough to provoke nuclear power into using it's weapons.
No. Kim from Korea would not launch, his advisors would talk him out of it.
No, mullah from Iran would not launch either, for very similar reasons.
No, Idiot from Texas would not launch nukes because his generals would tell him in plain terms how stupid it would be. And neither would arrogant frenchman.

In every nation there are people on top who LIKE to stay on top. Using nukes first is sure way of going down from top. Same way they know attacking nuclear power would be easy way to fall from top. And they can't have that so they hug their nukes and keep them safe.

[gigagaia]

I stole the title of my thread from a book I've been reading titled The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz. The following quotes I provide are a few of Waltz's arguments.

The basic premise of Waltz's arguments is that nuclear proliferation, though not necessarily desirable, isn't the recipe for world destruction either. Since nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to aggressive military action we can expect that such actions will become increasingly rare. As Waltz points out, nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon, not a defensive one. Nuclear weapons cannot defend anything, but allow a state to inflict heavy retaliatory punishment on another after an attack has begun. Waltz argues that the presence of nuclear weapons among the most powerful nations in the post WWII world explains the relative peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or China, or the European democracies and the Soviet Union. Why fight if you can't win much and might lose everything?





Consider these thoughts carefully. I'm sure I'll see many of the "but we can't let the Islamic nuts have them" posts, and I'm prepared. But I hope to see more well thought out responses.

In the interests of not reproducing the debate of them here, I will stay out of this (I own the book myself).
But have you read Sagan's arguments too?

[Nationalist_Cause]

In the interests of not reproducing the debate of them here, I will stay out of this (I own the book myself).
But have you read Sagan's arguments too?

I have but I happen to agree more with Waltz. Sagan makes some good points though.

[gigagaia]

I have but I happen to agree more with Waltz. Sagan makes some good points though.

I think you need to pay attention to Sagan's very good points about cost and safety. He isn't necessarily arguing that states may use them, but that there is a higher chance of them being used or accidentally going off. Iraq's prototype bomb was so insecure that people were worried about it moving at all, given that the slightest motion could have caused it to detonate. Waltz's theory works well in a world of United States, Japans, United Kingdoms and Frances, where these states have the money and expertise to construct fairly safe and secure systems, with reasonably good and transperant governments to protect against gross misuse and corruption. What Sagan is arguing, is that there is no such world, and states like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and the many African states are unable to safely develop and deploy nuclear weapons, given that safety is often the first casualty of budgetary constraints in such societies.

[amschill]

Didnt we send some commandos into Cuba, but it failed?

[gigagaia]

Didnt we send some commandos into Cuba, but it failed?

I think you need to elaborate how that has anything to do with whether or not more nuclear weapons would be better or worse for the world.

[Flavius Silvanus]

Did these guys borrow a lot of their arguments from Henry Kissenger.

His Multi-polar view of the world said the exact same thing.

It just took 35 years longer for China and Europe to (re)emerge as world powers than he predicted.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Pakistan has nukes and it's stopped India from militarily attacking it twice - in 1998 and in 2000-2001.

[Ummon]

I stole the title of my thread from a book I've been reading titled The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz. The following quotes I provide are a few of Waltz's arguments.

The basic premise of Waltz's arguments is that nuclear proliferation, though not necessarily desirable, isn't the recipe for world destruction either. Since nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to aggressive military action we can expect that such actions will become increasingly rare. As Waltz points out, nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon, not a defensive one. Nuclear weapons cannot defend anything, but allow a state to inflict heavy retaliatory punishment on another after an attack has begun. Waltz argues that the presence of nuclear weapons among the most powerful nations in the post WWII world explains the relative peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or China, or the European democracies and the Soviet Union. Why fight if you can't win much and might lose everything?





Consider these thoughts carefully. I'm sure I'll see many of the "but we can't let the Islamic nuts have them" posts, and I'm prepared. But I hope to see more well thought out responses.

This reply is not about Islamic nuts, but about nuts in general. This system works only with professional and well educated political classes facing each other. The first devil worshipping fanatic will cause the end of the world as well.

-----> logically, more countries with nukes means more chances for an occasional nut to come by. Basic statistics.