Tridant [political half-rant]

[Ryaga]

Banning is much more impractical than keeping them maintained. Since then you know instead of a few guys with nukes afraid to hit each other you've got one with enough to take out the entire world. Works for me.

Thinking that trying to get rid of weapons will make peace is naive. If you ban something it just makes the problem worse and the solution unenforceable.

I'll list some examples:
World War II - They imposed unenforcable limits on Germany and then lowered their own arms.

'War on Drugs' in America - It's made the problem worse because it can't be managed.

International ban on chemical weapons - It didn't work, obviously.

[formerly known as hf]

@ Ryaga.
I'm not gonna get into hypothetical games. Whatever the potential situations; whether terrorism or full-scale IC exchange between nuclear powers, I think we all know that the odds are tiny enough that anything is speculation, which tends to be an inexact science.

Suffice to say, the current state of international relations - at least between most of the nuclear owning nations - differs from the era of nuclear proliferation. To the extent that old rationales, which were always flakey, no longer apply. Sure, disarmament is not an easy solution. But it is eminently preferable to the alternative. We are quite good at destroying this world in a largely passive manner, without having the massive damage that nuclear weapons imply hanging over ourselves and future generations.

As for saying the world is worse than ever. That's not what I was saying. I was just refuting claims that things have changed all that much. Some things are better, some are worse. To sing the praises of the late 20th Century, linking that to nuclear arms, does a huge disrespect to the millions of people who continue to suffer to greater degrees. Suffering often caused by the creation and maintenance of the very things we take to be exemplary of the 'progress' you refer to. To ignore this, to be so shortsighted as not to see it, or, worse, to argue it away as not relevant due to 'how far our race has come' (you meant species, right?) continues an attitude which accepts, allows and even perpetuates such suffering. I'd rather be 'ungrateful' and continue to point out the far-too-often-ignored suffering we cause.

Addendum edit:
A few paradoxes of deterrence and MAD:
1) A 'no first use' policy, ultimately - under the MAD doctrine - means a 'no use policy'. So why build nuclear weapons, deterrence or otherwise, at all?
1a) On the other hand, to entertain the possibility of using nuclear weapons under a "no first use" policy is to entertain the idea of a "winnable nuclear war". I'm not sure the issues with such thinking seriously need to be expounded upon for the problems to be apparent.

2) As per Derrida:

An absolute missile does not abolish chance.
There is nothing serious to be said against that "rational" and "realistic" wisdom of dissuasion, against that economy of deferral or deterrence. The only possible reservation, beyond objection, is that if there are wars and a nuclear threat, it is because "deterrence" has neither "original meaning" nor measure. Its "logic" is the logic of deviation and transgression, it is rhetorical-strategic escalation or it is nothing at all. It gives itself over, by calculation, to the incalculable, to chance and luck.

To paraphrase: MAD or no; shit happens.

3) (and again, paraphrasing Derrida):
MAD implies, were it to happen, a war fought in the name of.... (Better dead than red, as it would have been back then). In the name of something that is greater than life itself. In the name of something that gives meaning to life itself. Yet this war in the name of... would be, under the logic of MAD and total destruction, the end of that name. For no more could that name give life, be borne out, or be transmitted.

[Ryaga]

@ Ryaga.
I'm not gonna get into hypothetical games. Whatever the potential situations; whether terrorism or full-scale IC exchange between nuclear powers, I think we all know that the odds are tiny enough that anything is speculation, which tends to be an inexact science.

Suffice to say, the current state of international relations - at least between most of the nuclear owning nations - differs from the era of nuclear proliferation. To the extent that old rationales, which were always flakey, no longer apply. Sure, disarmament is not an easy solution. But it is eminently preferable to the alternative. We are quite good at destroying this world in a largely passive manner, without having the massive damage that nuclear weapons imply hanging over ourselves and future generations.

As for saying the world is worse than ever. That's not what I was saying. I was just refuting claims that things have changed all that much. Some things are better, some are worse. To sing the praises of the late 20th Century, linking that to nuclear arms, does a huge disrespect to the millions of people who continue to suffer to greater degrees. Suffering often caused by the creation and maintenance of the very things we take to be exemplary of the 'progress' you refer to. To ignore this, to be so shortsighted as not to see it, or, worse, to argue it away as not relevant due to 'how far our race has come' (you meant species, right?) continues an attitude which accepts, allows and even perpetuates such suffering. I'd rather be 'ungrateful' and continue to point out the far-too-often-ignored suffering we cause.

It's become far better even in the places we regard as third world since even the days of WWII. They've not even felt the presence of MAD and it's improved condition wise. It's not irrelevant but it's on a completely different scale. Even Africa in recent years has become a much better place, even far from the effects of many of the advances of everywhere else not that this has to do with MAD but the advancement of society in general. Recently as in 10 years. The fighting in Sierra Leone stopped. They're not even close to attaining a state like MAD and it'd be very knitpicky to say that I meant it to apply to those not under it. It's also not hypothetical that a nuclear bomb wouldn't do much at ground level. It's pure science and been proven.

[Tangential]

The questions of what exactly causes war and what causes peace have been continuously asked, analyzed, and theorized over centuries. Frankly, sane people don't want to die. So why not create a formula to ensure that we don't have to die via a nuclear bomb here or terrorist there? Despite all the heart ache, frustration and disappointments at the expense of lost lives due to violence, no one can rationally say one way works and the other is just wrong. We can't experiment with life repeatedly under the same conditions to achieve a controlled result. We can't press ctrl+z right before a nuke lands on a nation, then start over and try a different method. Nor can we control the ever evolving society that moves with time to guarantee if something right happened in the past that it will continue to go right in the future. Things change.

HF brings up a lot of good points - all of which I want to agree, but because of the reality of things now, it is still a want, but not a reality.

MAD was always nonsense. The only glimmer of sense it may have had was between a US / USSR system, where one could bank to some extent on a rough notion of common sense.

Superbly true. MAD is perfectly logical during the US/USSR stand-off because the world was pretty much a bi-polar system. One nation was either with one side or the other and that was it. Two teams of more or less equal power: made sense to just leave each other be instead of killing each other off.

However, is it not too extreme to say that MAD is nonsense? MAD resulted from insecurity - a definite Realist perspective (Realism). If one party had a way to obliterate a state while that targeted state had no means of retaliating back after a nuclear weapon was launched - then yes, one should definitely feel insecure. The threat of knowing that launching a powerful weapon between states is mutually destructive is a rather decent deterrent of violence and the keeping of peace. You cannot discredit that people have a natural instinct to self-preserve and if gaining that "just as powerful nuclear weapon" "just in case" makes them feel more secure, then, rationally speaking, MAD is not laughable - it is selfish.

Imagine, if you will, that MAD was abandoned and nuclear weapons were simply banned. Who do you think will enforce this? The Big 5? And then after that, they'll just lightly agree to give up their own all together as well? Please - yeah right.

MAD is both an offensive strategy and a defensive strategy. Now imagine, on a more primitive scale, that all the tribes of the nation gathered together. The leaders of all tribes have agreed that from this day on, everyone gets rid of their spears, leaving them all free from these harmful weapons. Okay, burn them. But come the day a devious tribe who made new spears come into your tribe, expect yourself wondering whose bright idea it was to leave them all defenseless. Question of the day: Can you really trust everyone to comply to a 'universal' mandate? Would you stake your life on it and opt to become 'defenseless' in good faith?

One can argue that sure the nuclear weapons can be banned and then dismantled, but nations would be able to quickly build one if they need to in case of emergency. They would have all the necessary means to. Then.. what was the point of banning and dismantling them in the first place? If you can make them later then they might as well have already been made and have been sitting.

The technology has been made. It has been proven to work. It is devastating. It will not just 'disappear'. You cannot rewrite over what already has been written.

Pop quizz:
Who do you nuke if an international organisation of freedom fighters (or terrorists, if you so wish) smuggle nuclear ordinance and detonate it under a major US city?

Another very good point, but nuclear weapons are not deterrents for rebel organizations. The MAD is strictly for states due to liability. The government is responsible for its own people and thus a threat of MAD is pertinent here. For rebel organizations, they have no responsiblity to people hailing from where they operate from. Collateral damage means nothing to them. It is only when rebel organizations are being supported and funded by the state do threats of possible nuclear warfare come into play. The government has much more to lose supporting these rebels because the lives of all their citizens is at stake.

Re: Various: Nukes and lasting peace.
A number of immediate responses come to mind. "Bollocks" seems to me to be the most succinct.

Sounds good to me.

Wars are still waged. Wars are increasingly violent and result in harm and loss of life as weapons from earlier periods in the history of the developed nations filter down to places in South and East Asia and especially Africa...The war in Iraq is but a drop in an ocean of suffering compared to what goes on in Africa.

Entirely true. Not only are countries suffering from direct violence, but are more so being dragged down by indirect violence. Wars that take place in countries like Africa are not formal. Forget the laws of war, the jus in bello and the jus ad bellum. These wars are cruel and have generations of lasting effects not only physically, but psychologically and even biologically.

Moreover, saying that nuclear weapons are what keeps the peace is not entirely founded. History hasn't had nuclear weapons until rather recently. Prior to the invention, wars has always been there and may very well continue to persist like a cycle. And going back to the beginning of this post, battles were fought with their time's weapons technology (refer to battle of Crécy of English longbowmen vs French heavy armored knights), war doctrine (refer to battle of Chaeronea of Macedonian infantry and cavalry with Alexander the Great vs Greek hoplites for an epic military maneuver), and type of society (refer to Napoleon's conquests and his call to arms of all civilians via conscription during the French Revolution). Warfare has been constantly changing - evolving with time, thus to say a certain thing is what keeps the peace is, in HF's words, "myopic".

[Doug R.]

@HF - if you think a single ounce of radioactive material will ever enter Yucca mountain, you're an extreme optimist. There are no permanent nuclear waste storage facilities in the US. All waste is stored on-site in temporary holding units at the reactors.

The "not in my backyard" mentality will always prevent the rational disposal of toxic waste in the United States (or the building of new prisons).

Maybe we're both right - in the UK, it could be cheaper to decommission them, but in the US, cost isn't relevant, because it's an impossibility.

My war casualty quote was taken from an article in Newsweek magazine. I don't have a primary source, but that magazine is about at respectable as they come in the US. The point was that less people have died from war in the last 50 years than have in any other 50 year span in human history. If you think that's not true, then you seem to have a very glossy view of the past, when people were butchered wholesale by dynasties and empires, because it was cheaper to kill them than control them.

Finally, as a point of clarification, I said MAD "ushered in" the relatively peaceful era we have today. I made no claims that it plays a role in maintaining it (globalization of the markets is doing that).

[lordcooper]

For those arguing the pros of MAD strategy: The 80s called and left a message, it has a framework where your policies are not laughable and thinks you might find it useful.


MAD was always nonsense. The only glimmer of sense it may have had was between a US / USSR system, where one could bank to some extent on a rough notion of common sense.

MAD does not work in a system when one party, by whatever means they may have got hold of nuclear ordinance, does not subscribe to such notions of common sense.

Pop quizz:
Who do you nuke if an international organisation of freedom fighters (or terrorists, if you so wish) smuggle nuclear ordinance and detonate it under a major US city?


Re: Doug and keeping missiles maintained.
False. The cheapest option, by far, is to decommission nuclear missiles and warheads and their silos. And deal with the warheads via whatever means you would normally deal with that grade of nuclear waste. Whether you want to sweep it underground somewhere like the current work in Yucca Mountain and pretend it's not there or vitrify it or some other system of disposal. Moreover, decomissioning makes the chances of someone you-don't-want-to-lay-their-hands-on-weapons-grade-plutonium laying their hands on it nil. As there is none to find.

Re: Various: Nukes and lasting peace.
A number of immediate responses come to mind. "Bollocks" seems to me to be the most succinct.
On a more polite note, I'd be interested where that 'less people have died from war since WWII' factoid comes from. I'm certain that is not the case.

Wars are still waged. Wars are increasingly violent and result in harm and loss of life as weapons from earlier periods in the history of the developed nations filter down to places in South and East Asia and especially Africa.

The expanse of the conflict does not necessarily equate to the scale of loss. The war in Iraq is but a drop in an ocean of suffering compared to what goes on in Africa. Just because you may have a myopic world view, does not mean that wars in Africa are not world wars. Their causes, if not their effects, are international. To claim nukes have heralded peace is frankly sickening. What it has meant is that nuclear owning nations have become experts at getting other people to do their fighting for them.



The cheapest solution, the most peaceful solution, the safest solution, to the 'fact' of nuclear weapons is to internationally ban them. For all those stockpiles to be decomissioned and made unusable. For proliferation (whether new or as 'replacement) to halt, and for non-nuclear nations to agree or be policed if needs be into not developing their own.

I vote you for leader of the world.

[Gran]

I think that the best "peaceful" solution against the ghost of nuclear warfare is to build bunkers and hide in moutainous areas, where the blast would likely be blocked by the terrain. Really, there is no going back. There is no 'ban' that will take the warheads out of international politics. Nor a treaty that will completely ensure that they won't proliferate.

There are way more nukes around the world. The fruits of hidden researchs conducted years ago, before such worries of "containing proliferation" became widespread, are still there. Just waiting to be assembled and deployed.

The discussion on banning nuclear warheads, as I see, is therefore useless. And everyone who has a single drop of realist thought in their blood will likely agree with me. It is useless because not only the "defense of the nation" will more likely prevail over the humanitarian causes, but also because the discussion is as mobile as MAD or trench warfare. It will move nowhere until a change of paradigm comes. As the tanks came to trenches.