Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think we'll ever completely get rid of nukes? Like every country will one day agree to completely get rid of anything and everything nuclear?
Moderator's note for all who are perhaps new to the Great Debates forum: Please refrain from making one-line posts, as per Great Debates rules. Thank you.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 12-01-2021 at 11:50 AM..
Reason: Added topic title to post.
What do you think is the main thing stopping that from happening?
Trust.
The reason you have any nuclear weapons treaties at all is due to technology.
Technology is what allows you to verify, meaning verify compliance with a treaty.
The reason the US and Russia were able to engage in a series of treaties known as SALT (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) is due to the fact that both States had satellite technology to verify compliance.
For any State that has a nuclear weapons program, it has a nuclear weapons infrastructure.
That nuclear weapons infrastructure consists of design, testing, production, storage, transportation, security and maintenance among things.
That infrastructure inherently leaves a large foot-print that you cannot hide.
You might say you cannot test nuclear warheads due to treaties, and you'd be right, but that's not the only thing that must be tested. The components must be tested, the plastic explosives (and there are many different kinds) must be tested, the guidance system, the engine/motor, boosters, the re-entry vehicle, the launch and delivery systems all have to be tested.
Later the US developed advanced ground-penetrating radar, which allows it to engage in extreme methods of verification.
You might remember the classified Space Shuttle missions of the early 1990s circumnavigating the entire Earth with ground-penetrating radar. You no longer have shuttles, but you don't need them because you have satellites that perform the same mission.
Anyway, the primary issue has always been trust and the ability to verify compliance with a treaty.
The only time nuclear weapons were used in warfare was when only one country had nuclear capability.
The purpose now of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is to pose as a deterrent to someone else from actually using theirs.
To hope for a complete moratorium is naive thinking.
When your solo sail boat trip runs into a storm and you're dumped into the ocean and you're treading water for hours with no hope of rescue, do you think to yourself, "Self, I hate this treading water, I wish I could stop." and then reasonably think you can?
All countries agree to get rid of anything nuclear for the goal of mutual world peace? Not a chance.
World peace does not come from giving countries such as Iran, People's Democratic Republic of Korea and the like the ability to mount devastating conventional or terrorist attack without realistic fear of consequences. Iraq demonstrated why conventional occupy and hold of rogue countries does not work well, without massive commitment of resources. I would add the excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link). As Edward Luttwak explained in this article (quote is two paragraphs of 28 page article):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Luttwak in Commentary - August 1982
The first of the two fundamental military factors is, quite simply, that NATO is a defensive alliance-not just defensive in declared intent, as all self-respecting alliances will claim to be, but rather in actual military orientation. Specifically, the forces of NATO on the "central front"-the600-kilometer line running from the Baltic Sea to the Austrian border-are incapable of offensive operations on a large scale.
***********
And since NATO is a defensive-only alliance, the Soviet army could concentrate its forces in powerful offensive thrusts aimed at narrow segments of that front.
Nuclear power? It's a dang good idea and I hope they don't get rid of nuclear POWER until renewable sources can economically fully replace it.
There are several companies currently working on small modular reactors, they will be as cheap to build as a nat gas plant and can be assembled in about the same time frame. This is the real future of carbon free power. Wind and solar will never be able to keep up with demand, you will deplete the earth of every rare earth mineral just trying too.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 983,133 times
Reputation: 1406
My overall answer to the thread is: maybe. A unified global community can strongly discourage additional State users from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. And, the global community can continue to incentive nonproliferation. But, why is proliferation bad? Because proliferation increases the likelihood of a nuclear weapon being used unintentionally, by a rogue actor, or deliberately by the State(s). The outcome of use as we already know, is beyond horrible.
There was an excellent argument made in a TEDTalk - military professionals would not consider a nuclear weapon to be a weapon at all. Military professionals do not employ biological or chemical weapons, which kill indiscriminately. Only terrorists do. The intended use of such weapons would certainly be a war crime/crime against humanity. In theory, the argument would hold true for nuclear weapons.
In the past, many nations abandoned their nuclear weapons and/or weapons programs in favor of geopolitical economic benefits, or rather to remove the burden of maintaining a functional nuclear weapon system. South Africa and former USSR nations like Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine surrendered their nuclear weapon systems, and others such as Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, and many more abandoned their nuclear weapons exploration/development programs. The only nation that recently considered eliminating their arsenal, or significantly reducing it, was the UK, wherein the Labour Party had proposed to not renew (age-out) the military's aging nuclear submarine trident system (currently the only means of delivery). However, many non-NPT States such as North Korea, Israel, India, and Pakistan continue to maintain nuclear weapons arsenals, which is of concern and detriment to the goal of disarmament. Iran has expressed interest in developing nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT.
Unless and until there is more transparency, cooperation, and communication among world leaders and governments, perhaps there will be insufficient justification for continued disarmament and nonproliferation. Without the means of verification in real-time with acceptable accuracy, the nuclear weapons capabilities of all nations, the goal of disarmament will be difficult to achieve. Fortunately, with the exception of North Korea, no other nations have used nor tested any live nuclear weapons for a long time (1998?). For what it's worth, I am optimistic that the goal of disarmament can be achieved.
I would add the excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link). As Edward Luttwak explained in this article (quote is two paragraphs of 28 page article):
Specifically, the forces of NATO on the "central front"-the600-kilometer line running from the Baltic Sea to the Austrian border-are incapable of offensive operations on a large scale.
Luttwak is being grossly disingenuous.
NATO was certainly capable of offensive operations, and even more so once reinforced by US units.
Unlike Luttwak who doesn't know what he's talking about, I was actually there, and NATO had offensive plans.
Luttwak is ignorant of the Tripartite Agreement. Not only am I familiar with it, I lived it and rehearsed it.
That plan consisted of three fragmentary operational orders, one of which was an offensive operation against the Warsaw Pact.
The Warsaw Pact was also capable of offensive operations. The Group of Soviet Forces Germany and Group of Soviet Forces South were specifically arrayed for both an offensive operation and defense.
At any time, the Warsaw Pact could have initiated an offensive operation and overwhelmed NATO in about 30 days, yet they did not, and it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
[Moderator cut]
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-22-2020 at 01:08 PM..
Nukes are really not a very practical way to eliminate an enemy. Wouldn't it be better to just get rid of the HUMANS you hate and have all of their resources intact? IF I wanted to do this I would develop a virus that had about a three week incubation period that had a mortality rate of about 20% or so. HOWEVER you have already developed an antidote that would instantly provide a cure. Would any other country take action against your extortion threat?
Written from the TWILIGHT ZONE.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 11-30-2021 at 08:20 PM..
*Someday, technology will make nuclear weapons obsolete even in the context of their current deterrent use. In short, something else will be developed that will be more suited to the task. That technology could be something that will have even more dire potential implications than nuclear weapons. But nuclear weapons are a technology, and it will go one day just as it has come.
*Also one day, the Earth is likely to be united politically. The course of human history has been a steady consolidation of political entities, from bands to tribes to chiefdoms to proto-states and nation states and now even larger groupings. Eventually, there will be political unity. This is surely many centuries distant at present (on the other hand, who knows? much about the world today is beyond what anyone could have imagined just a couple hundred years ago).
The world is not static. Change comes, sooner or later. Nuclear weapons are not going to be an eternal fixture, though it seems extremely unlikely that they won't outlast anyone currently alive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
