Frustration with nonproliferation.

[TheMuffinKing]

This is a personal viewpoint inspired by our friends the Government of Iran and to a much lesser extent, N. Korea.

In my opinion, nonproliferation is useless unless tangible measures are made. Lately all we've seen are dealings with unscrupulous individuals and nations hell bent on manipulating diplomacy in such a way as to buy time to get nuclear weapons, hell the situation seems to confirm exactly what much of the world already believes; the West is weak and having a bomb will dissuade them from any meaningful action.

We are lucky that early on we had "rational actors" in charge of the world's nuclear stockpiles and I agree fully that everyone was lucky that nukes weren't flying in our recent history. Keeping that in mind, I feel that unless the powers that be make available real and painful actions against those pursuing nuclear weapons, we will never get anywhere. With this in mind we must not discard our diplomatic capabilities.

Using diplomacy to offer a beneficial situation to both sides must always be pursued first, however the reality is that there are countries who will acquire or develop their own weapons regardless of treaties. Nations concerned with nonproliferation must be prepared on every angle; diplomatic, economic, and militarily to ensure their own security (and that of their allies) and to be willing to use these facets to ensure nonproliferation.

Here is a radical viewpoint: The West and other nations adhering to the concept of nonproliferation need to stop fucking around and do what needs to be done. Sanctions, aid, overt and covert force and subterfuge must all be utilized if the world wants to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Otherwise we let these barbarian nations have their weapons, make ourselves as impotent as we look, and drop the idea of nonproliferation. Personally, I say fuck them, if Iran or North Korea want nuclear weapons, so be it. When the time for actions arise we must allow ourselves to be cowed by the threat of nukes. The West must get over its aversion to casualties and accept that losses will occur, otherwise too many people's lives will be controlled and dictated by the fear of the bomb. To sum it up, basically the nonproliferation crowd needs to suck it up and get shit done and accept the consequences either way.

I kind of went off there. Sorry. Discuss!

[Coyote]

Unfortunately, our credibility is sort of up in the air right now because of Iraq.

Let's remember that the stated reason for going in there was to find WMDs (not just nukes, but at the time we were given to believe that nuke parts existed and that chem and bio did exist). We most definitely went in and absorbed casualties and took Iraq apart conventionally on this very principle, only to find that... there were no WMDs.

So if we mass up on another border and start huffing and puffing about WMDs/Nukes, there's not going to be a lot of support and in fact there'll be a lot of suspicion about what we're up to. And that will drive more people to want the bomb.

But in principle, I'm with you. The more tinpot dictators that get the bomb while the West wrings its hands, the higher the chances that someone is going to go off and use one. Probably not on the US, because they know retaliation will be beyond their ability to absorb, but against a weaker neighbor who's land they covet? An India-Pakistan exchange? I'm sure it is only a matter of time before there is a small-scale nuclear exchange in some 'developing world' region that will put the problem in stark contrast...

[Ender]

Simple fact is is that the reason we haven't had a nuke fight yet is luck in all parties electing sufficiently grounded leaders. The much hyped "deterrence factor" of nuclear weapons is based off the fact that those in power have been deterred. But there is zero reason at all to think that will continue to be the case - history is full of leaders convinced of their own success and righteousness thinking that the short victorious war is a possibility. And the more places that have nukes, the greater the chance of one of those people getting their hands on them. Look at how close the US and Soviets came to fighting a war - in one case it literally came down to one man making the decision to ignore his equipment. Spread nukes around and you won't get increased safety.

[Skgoa]

[...] start huffing and puffing about WMDs/Nukes, there's not going to be a lot of support and in fact there'll be a lot of suspicion about what we're up to. And that will drive more people to want the bomb.

with the invasion of Iraq the US has practically stated that even if you do NOT build/have nukes it will not stop them from invading you. there really is no reason for not wanting to become a nuclear power anymore.

[Stark]

Here is a radical viewpoint: The West and other nations adhering to the concept of nonproliferation need to stop fucking around and do what needs to be done. Sanctions, aid, overt and covert force and subterfuge must all be utilized if the world wants to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Otherwise we let these barbarian nations have their weapons, make ourselves as impotent as we look, and drop the idea of nonproliferation. Personally, I say fuck them, if Iran or North Korea want nuclear weapons, so be it. When the time for actions arise we must allow ourselves to be cowed by the threat of nukes. The West must get over its aversion to casualties and accept that losses will occur, otherwise too many people's lives will be controlled and dictated by the fear of the bomb. To sum it up, basically the nonproliferation crowd needs to suck it up and get shit done and accept the consequences either way.

I kind of went off there. Sorry. Discuss!

Ironically this is the very attitude that makes nukes attractive; to NOT be interfered with by others, specifically the US, they feel they NEED the security of nuclear weapons. It's hardly surprising that nations seeing this window of opportunity closing would hurry to join the nuclear club before membership is closed. Clumsily trying to STOP people developing nuclear weapons increases the chance they'll be used, which as Ender points out is non-zero and increasing.

Of course your whole point isn't that nukes are bad, simply that people you don't like having nukes is bad, so ... lol?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Here is a radical viewpoint: The West and other nations adhering to the concept of nonproliferation need to stop fucking around and do what needs to be done. Sanctions, aid, overt and covert force and subterfuge must all be utilized if the world wants to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Otherwise we let these barbarian nations have their weapons, make ourselves as impotent as we look, and drop the idea of nonproliferation. Personally, I say fuck them, if Iran or North Korea want nuclear weapons, so be it. When the time for actions arise we must allow ourselves to be cowed by the threat of nukes. The West must get over its aversion to casualties and accept that losses will occur, otherwise too many people's lives will be controlled and dictated by the fear of the bomb. To sum it up, basically the nonproliferation crowd needs to suck it up and get shit done and accept the consequences either way.

I kind of went off there. Sorry. Discuss!

Ironically this is the very attitude that makes nukes attractive; to NOT be interfered with by others, specifically the US, they feel they NEED the security of nuclear weapons.

Do you see this as a greater consideration than the offensive/power benefits of a nuke?
I'm asking your opinion, not arguing, I just want to know if you have the Elfdart view of "They only want nukes to defend their poor selves from Imperiualistic interfering hegemonies!" or whether you're just pointing out that this is an additional consideration. (Which is true, but a minor consideration for the nations most of us are thinking about when we read this thread, less the USSR, more nations trying to get nuclear weapons, not a nuclear deterrent to other nukes).

It's hardly surprising that nations seeing this window of opportunity closing would hurry to join the nuclear club before membership is closed.

When did it ever close or threaten to close in the past, oh, 50 years? North Korea is sanctioned by half the planet and didn't suffer consequences for it's nukes (South Korea isn't threatening to cut off sanctions due to the weapons, but due to overall beligerency by the Norks), Pakistan has an arsenal, India developed after the NPT, etc'
The club being "closed" in 1959 with the NPT's signing is looking to be either a fable, or an exaggeration. (unfortunately).

Clumsily trying to STOP people developing nuclear weapons increases the chance they'll be used, which as Ender points out is non-zero and increasing.

Yup. But, it's better than even more nations having it, no? Otherwise, why try to stop the developments?
"Wouldn't it be safer to have open programs for developing nuclear technology in all aspects, without censorship? With scientists from every country on Earth allowed to freely study and develop the technologies, not just the limited uses for energy specific applications or research as today? With that, good will could be improved, more cooperation between nations, so what if there would be many times more nuclear states, they'd all be more stable, which would be better overall, right?"

Of course your whole point isn't that nukes are bad, simply that people you don't like having nukes is bad, so ... lol?

Dammit, stop selling the secrets of blackpowder to the Dutch! I mean, stirrups to the Indians! Compasses to the Europeans!
Flint axes to Dug and Ug from the other side of the valley?
/Joke.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Ironically this is the very attitude that makes nukes attractive; to NOT be interfered with by others, specifically the US, they feel they NEED the security of nuclear weapons.

Do you see this as a greater consideration than the offensive/power benefits of a nuke?

Personally, I think that avoiding military threats from others ( not just the US ) is pretty much the only reason nations try for nukes these days. Actually using them offensively is almost certain to lead to disaster being rained down upon the user.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The advantage of a nuke, for a defense-challenged nation such as Iran, is so that any superior power comes along and tries to attack it, there will at least be consequences and not a complete steamroll. Otherwise, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive endeavours. Cost benefit wise however, if it is cheaper to get a nuclear weapon than to upgrade one's armed forces, which should one choose?

[Lord of the Abyss]

The advantage of a nuke, for a defense-challenged nation such as Iran, is so that any superior power comes along and tries to attack it, there will at least be consequences and not a complete steamroll. Otherwise, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive endeavours. Cost benefit wise however, if it is cheaper to get a nuclear weapon than to upgrade one's armed forces, which should one choose?

That would depend on how outclassed you are militarily, I'd think. To continue with the example of Iran being worried about an attack by the US, I doubt that they could possibly upgrade their conventional forces enough to stop the US if we really wanted. A few nukes however could; we don't directly attack nuclear armed nations.

[Stark]

Do you see this as a greater consideration than the offensive/power benefits of a nuke?
I'm asking your opinion, not arguing, I just want to know if you have the Elfdart view of "They only want nukes to defend their poor selves from Imperiualistic interfering hegemonies!" or whether you're just pointing out that this is an additional consideration. (Which is true, but a minor consideration for the nations most of us are thinking about when we read this thread, less the USSR, more nations trying to get nuclear weapons, not a nuclear deterrent to other nukes).

Any insecure nation looking to see off foreign adventurism would look at the last 50 years and see that having a few nukes helps your position, even if you don't have 'proper' nukes with a strategic deterrent, SSBNs, etc. Who knows how these 'barbarians' think, but equating people wanting nukes with being lunatics is inane, since it arguably makes sense to countries in various situations. We can sit and say that having a few nukes with no decent delivery system is pretty pointless and not worth the shit it stirs up, but when nations feel threatened...

When did it ever close or threaten to close in the past, oh, 50 years? North Korea is sanctioned by half the planet and didn't suffer consequences for it's nukes (South Korea isn't threatening to cut off sanctions due to the weapons, but due to overall beligerency by the Norks), Pakistan has an arsenal, India developed after the NPT, etc'
The club being "closed" in 1959 with the NPT's signing is looking to be either a fable, or an exaggeration. (unfortunately).

While it seems like it's 'easier' to do it now, it's possible many nations (like Iran) realise that once America gets out of it's current entanglements, they'd better be in a strong position or they're fucked. Particularly with the rhetoric like in the OP, some sort of kicking-the-doors-in invasions on flimsy pretences might be seen as 'acceptable' these days. The irony is it may be seen that the only way to stop a nation busting you up on trumped-up charges of developing nukes is to actually have nukes.

Yup. But, it's better than even more nations having it, no? Otherwise, why try to stop the developments?

Vested interests and the real possibility that some of these nations are far less stable than others? It's one thing waving your fist at the French or Soviets, but arguably it's far more difficult to actually negotiate with some countries pursuing nuclear programs now (not least because of the DO AS WE SAY RAR rhetoric).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That would depend on how outclassed you are militarily, I'd think. To continue with the example of Iran being worried about an attack by the US, I doubt that they could possibly upgrade their conventional forces enough to stop the US if we really wanted. A few nukes however could; we don't directly attack nuclear armed nations.

That's exactly the rationale many of the "rogue states" adopt when they grab nukes. THe problem really is that there was a reluctance in the last administration to give any security guarantees, but preferred to corner these states into the corner and then they look into means to stave off possible attack.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Ironically this is the very attitude that makes nukes attractive; to NOT be interfered with by others, specifically the US, they feel they NEED the security of nuclear weapons.

Do you see this as a greater consideration than the offensive/power benefits of a nuke?

Personally, I think that avoiding military threats from others ( not just the US ) is pretty much the only reason nations try for nukes these days. Actually using them offensively is almost certain to lead to disaster being rained down upon the user.

Using them offensively against who? Other nuclear states, "superpower" Nuclear states (USA, USSR, advanced countries with an ABM system and/or the ability to "absorb" nuclear attacks due to size and stability), Also, they have an immense soft power benefits for saber rattling and getting concessions.

Do you see this as a greater consideration than the offensive/power benefits of a nuke?
I'm asking your opinion, not arguing, I just want to know if you have the Elfdart view of "They only want nukes to defend their poor selves from Imperiualistic interfering hegemonies!" or whether you're just pointing out that this is an additional consideration. (Which is true, but a minor consideration for the nations most of us are thinking about when we read this thread, less the USSR, more nations trying to get nuclear weapons, not a nuclear deterrent to other nukes).

Any insecure nation looking to see off foreign adventurism would look at the last 50 years and see that having a few nukes helps your position, even if you don't have 'proper' nukes with a strategic deterrent, SSBNs, etc. Who knows how these 'barbarians' think, but equating people wanting nukes with being lunatics is inane, since it arguably makes sense to countries in various situations.

You confuse me with a sterotype, Iran (and the other countries wanting nukes) are very rational in the reasons why they want nukes - objectively looked at: The penalties are toothless, they're not seriously afraid of multinational military action enforcing the NPT, and the benefits are immense and long term (especially in their environment, where they don't have a nuclear USSR or USA to worry about, but rather neighbouring Arab states [Who are all clamoring for nukes as well know, due to Iran]).
It makes perfect sense for them, at least as long as the benefits and potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks. So far, the drawbacks are some political bitching, and ineffective sanctions.

We can sit and say that having a few nukes with no decent delivery system is pretty pointless and not worth the shit it stirs up, but when nations feel threatened...

First of all, developing decent delivery systems is not as impossible as people seem to think, Iran has a good technology and industrialization base, lots of money, and most importantly - the nukes are best for regional power, against other regional states (Oh, and probably Israel). The option of loading a bomb up on a fighter jet is rather realistic (for the foreseeable future).

When did it ever close or threaten to close in the past, oh, 50 years? North Korea is sanctioned by half the planet and didn't suffer consequences for it's nukes (South Korea isn't threatening to cut off sanctions due to the weapons, but due to overall beligerency by the Norks), Pakistan has an arsenal, India developed after the NPT, etc'
The club being "closed" in 1959 with the NPT's signing is looking to be either a fable, or an exaggeration. (unfortunately).

While it seems like it's 'easier' to do it now, it's possible many nations (like Iran) realise that once America gets out of it's current entanglements, they'd better be in a strong position or they're fucked.

Current entanglements including Iraq (2011? optimistic), and Afghanistan and the economic crisis? America could have done some of what i've seen some people in these threads suggest (not you though), I.E "Invade Iran, topple the Regime, Iraq 2.0, Free Oil and Gas for all!" in the past with rather greater ease than today, the development of nuclear capabilities is far more an action than a defensive reaction.
Particularly with the rhetoric like in the OP, some sort of kicking-the-doors-in invasions on flimsy pretences might be seen as 'acceptable' these days. The irony is it may be seen that the only way to stop a nation busting you up on trumped-up charges of developing nukes is to actually have nukes.

Yup. But, it's better than even more nations having it, no? Otherwise, why try to stop the developments?

Vested interests and the real possibility that some of these nations are far less stable than others? It's one thing waving your fist at the French or Soviets, but arguably it's far more difficult to actually negotiate with some countries pursuing nuclear programs now (not least because of the DO AS WE SAY RAR rhetoric).

Depends on what negotiations you use - It's far easier to negotiate when "you" have leverage or greater power. (Which is the case here, and wasn't the case against, say, Russia for the USA or vice versa).

[Darth Wong]

Here is a radical viewpoint: The West and other nations adhering to the concept of nonproliferation need to stop fucking around and do what needs to be done. Sanctions, aid, overt and covert force and subterfuge must all be utilized if the world wants to prevent a nuclear catastrophe.

How the fuck is that a radical viewpoint? That is the politically orthodox opinion in most western countries, particularly America. Many people even go further and advocate unilateral nuking of other countries that try to get nukes, because their leaders are too unstable to refrain from using nukes (of course, it goes without saying that people like this don't realize the irony of what they're saying).

What you are describing as a "radical viewpoint" has been the policy of the first-world nations for quite a while now. It's not working because people aren't willing to invade and occupy foreign nations in order to stop them from joining the nuclear club, and the occasional bombing isn't enough to deter them (it may actually convince them that it's more important than ever to get nukes). So what are you advocating, exactly? Invasion and occupation of every nation that you think might want to get nukes?

And what about known unstable nations full of religious fanatics which already have nukes, like Pakistan? Are you willing to pay the cost in blood of invading and disarming Pakistan?

[TheMuffinKing]

Here is a radical viewpoint: The West and other nations adhering to the concept of nonproliferation need to stop fucking around and do what needs to be done. Sanctions, aid, overt and covert force and subterfuge must all be utilized if the world wants to prevent a nuclear catastrophe.

How the fuck is that a radical viewpoint? That is the politically orthodox opinion in most western countries, particularly America. Many people even go further and advocate unilateral nuking of other countries that try to get nukes, because their leaders are too unstable to refrain from using nukes (of course, it goes without saying that people like this don't realize the irony of what they're saying).

What you are describing as a "radical viewpoint" has been the policy of the first-world nations for quite a while now. It's not working because people aren't willing to invade and occupy foreign nations in order to stop them from joining the nuclear club, and the occasional bombing isn't enough to deter them (it may actually convince them that it's more important than ever to get nukes). So what are you advocating, exactly? Invasion and occupation of every nation that you think might want to get nukes?

And what about known unstable nations full of religious fanatics which already have nukes, like Pakistan? Are you willing to pay the cost in blood of invading and disarming Pakistan?

I'm advocating a unified front against proliferation of WMD's through primarily diplomatic means. In my opinion, diplomacy and compromise should be at the forefront of any discussion concerning these weapons. My ideal scenario would encompass provisions of aid (economic, medical, technical, and military) and extensive discussion of alternatives to the procurement of WMD's. As for dealing with nations already possessing these weapons, incentives must be given and acted reliably upon to persuade them to disarm.

I realize that diplomatic measures and military options are only effective if they are enforced. I suppose this is where my frustration arises, as I have seen little in the way of decisive action,especially diplomatically.

Concerning a country like Pakistan, in my opinion, if their current government can maintain the security of their weapons, and doesn't go threatening to use said weapons, then there is no reason to utilize military force. Now if the loony bin holds the keys to the nukes, and they start making threats while simultaneously prepping the weapons for use, then military force, overt and covert, would be a reasonable response.

To answer your question, yes I am willing pay the cost to disarm Pakistan, but only if the worst case scenario occurred and their military lost control of their nukes. If my sacrifice ensures that millions of people are spared a holocaust, then so be it.

[K. A. Pital]

"Radical viewpoint", "barbarian nations". We heard that before. I think he's advocating the invasion and occupation of any nation he thinks is "barbarian", because that way no barbarian nations will be left in the world to get nukes. That's the "radical viewpoint". Yeah, and since no one stopped India, Pakistan and Israel getting nuclear weapons, I wonder why one should suddenly jump up and try to stop other nations.

If my sacrifice ensures that millions of people are spared a holocaust, then so be it.

The problem is that you're inflicting an actual holocaust to prevent a "potential" one which hinges on them ever sometime in the future using nukes against you in reality. That's a lousy logic, and it's quite close to the racist "we shoud kill them all before they get the grip on us, or else!!"

[TheMuffinKing]

"Radical viewpoint", "barbarian nations". We heard that before. I think he's advocating the invasion and occupation of any nation he thinks is "barbarian", because that way no barbarian nations will be left in the world to get nukes. That's the "radical viewpoint". Yeah, and since no one stopped India, Pakistan and Israel getting nuclear weapons, I wonder why one should suddenly jump up and try to stop other nations.

If my sacrifice ensures that millions of people are spared a holocaust, then so be it.

The problem is that you're inflicting an actual holocaust to prevent a "potential" one which hinges on them ever sometime in the future using nukes against you in reality. That's a lousy logic, and it's quite close to the racist "we shoud kill them all before they get the grip on us, or else!!"

You make a good point, I will not deny than my logic is probably flawed and I am not trying to espouse any racist policy! My frustration stems not so much from nations having or acquiring WMD's, but from the West's and the UN's inability to form a plan and stick to it. Personally, the weapons aren't the issue, the indecisiveness of those nations support nonproliferation is.

I accept that this may be a naive and flawed idea and my rant may be based on an outright wrong perception of events.

[K. A. Pital]

My frustration stems not so much from nations having or acquiring WMD's, but from the West's and the UN's inability to form a plan and stick to it. Personally, the weapons aren't the issue, the indecisiveness of those nations support nonproliferation is.

Then maybe nonproliferation is a flawed idea. Ask Shep about it. Okay, humour aside, it can really be so that nonproliferation is a bad idea. More strategic weaponry in everyone's cache, less chance of conventional wars going too far.

[The Grim Squeaker]

My frustration stems not so much from nations having or acquiring WMD's, but from the West's and the UN's inability to form a plan and stick to it. Personally, the weapons aren't the issue, the indecisiveness of those nations support nonproliferation is.

Then maybe nonproliferation is a flawed idea. Ask Shep about it. Okay, humour aside, it can really be so that nonproliferation is a bad idea. More strategic weaponry in everyone's cache, less chance of conventional wars going too far.

Less a chance of conventional wars going too far, before they become Thermonuclear wars you mean?

The logic of "No one could use weapons so destructive" has a rather....horrendous track record in human history, from World war 1, to World War 2, to germ warfare and brutal practices by settlers.
In a war, I have 1% confidence in "Weapons which can wipe the enemy out entirely" making wars less destructive.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'm advocating a unified front against proliferation of WMD's through primarily diplomatic means. In my opinion, diplomacy and compromise should be at the forefront of any discussion concerning these weapons.

Which won't work. We aren't trustworthy, and our potential targets like Iran will just think we are trying to convince them to stay helpless until we are in a better position to attack them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Less a chance of conventional wars going too far, before they become Thermonuclear wars you mean?

The logic of "No one could use weapons so destructive" has a rather....horrendous track record in human history, from World war 1, to World War 2, to germ warfare and brutal practices by settlers.
In a war, I have 1% confidence in "Weapons which can wipe the enemy out entirely" making wars less destructive.

Israel has nukes, so what are you bellyaching about? If Iran tried anything funny, there would be mushroom clouds in Tehran.

[Ender]

Then maybe nonproliferation is a flawed idea. Ask Shep about it. Okay, humour aside, it can really be so that nonproliferation is a bad idea. More strategic weaponry in everyone's cache, less chance of conventional wars going too far.

Good point. No one would ever dare pick a fight with a country that could lay waste to them with ease. By the way, I was busy watching the Olympics, anything newsworthy happen in your neck of the woods this summer?

Israel has nukes, so what are you bellyaching about? If Iran tried anything funny, there would be mushroom clouds in Tehran.

Because maybe he is concerned about millions of people being killed with the push of a button? Nothing says it has to even be about him and his. If India and Pakistan let them fly we would certainly give a damn, even if none of us were impacted by the war.

[loomer]

As it currently stands, though, we do have something of a Dune like scenario. Nuclear weapons are owned by an elite handful of nations (including India and Pakistan and probably some shithole former Soviet Bloc countries... Whoops.) but using them would bring down complete condemnation and purging atomic fire on the country that employed them first, most likely from all quarters. Prior to the break up of the Soviet Union, it was a less stable system in some regards, but is now far more so.

The only question is when will it cease to be a scenario like that? It certainly won't last forever.

[K. A. Pital]

By the way, I was busy watching the Olympics, anything newsworthy happen in your neck of the woods this summer?

Georgia knew it won't get nuked for attacking SO.

[phongn]

Nuclear weapons are owned by an elite handful of nations (including India and Pakistan and probably some shithole former Soviet Bloc countries... Whoops.) but using them would bring down complete condemnation and purging atomic fire on the country that employed them first, most likely from all quarters.

Wait, what? Why would it cause that? A nation as just demonstrated the capability and will to use a WMD and and now other countries are going to risk attacking it?

[loomer]

What do you think would be the result of, say, Iran using a nuclear bomb? Everyone suddenly bowing down? It's far more likely to trigger an exchange between it and other capable nations with paranoid leaders - they have a better developed atomic program, a stronger nation as a whole, and better infrastructure. The big superpowers are the only real exception to my line of reasoning here, for obvious reasons.

Honestly, if the repercussions wouldn't be severe and rapid, there is very little deterrent to using nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state.