Banning nuclear weapons going well!

[robocop (actually)]

Sorry; the website solicits money so I decided not to post it.

The July 7th nuclear weapons ban vote looks like it will have a great number of participators. This was very important to world safety. People who are go-betweens with voters are sure that it will go very well.

 

[Nietzsche]

I really do not like this. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that's prevented Europe from being a battlefield for the third time in the same century. And you want to take that..away?

 

[LuisDantas]

MAD is, at the very best, tolerable to have if sanity is not an option.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry; the website solicits money so I decided not to post it.

The July 7th nuclear weapons ban vote looks like it will have a great number of participators. This was very important to world safety. People who are go-betweens with voters are sure that it will go very well.

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," Trump posted to Twitter on December 22, 2016

 

[robocop (actually)]

Thank you Luis Dantas for supporting my view; how refreshing!

We want to take as much as we can away together so that one aggressor isn't looming over the heads of others. Sorry Nietzsche I know it is difficult but I believe this is the way forward.

 

[BSM1]

Thank you Luis Dantas for supporting my view; how refreshing!

We want to take as much as we can away together so that one aggressor isn't looming over the heads of others. Sorry Nietzsche I know it is difficult but I believe this is the way forward.

Sooo...you think NK will give up any of their's?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Nope!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

MAD is, at the very best, tolerable to have if sanity is not an option.

Looking at the global political landscape, sanity is in woefully painful short supply.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I really do not like this. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that's prevented Europe from being a battlefield for the third time in the same century. And you want to take that..away?

We could at least wind it back so that we can only completely annihilate the world 3 or 4 times over, instead of 30 or 40, though.

After all the quality control in terms of ICBM maintenance and safety in the US is pretty woeful (eg. Blast doors propped open because of broken locking mechanism)

If the US standards are low, what's it like in Siberia???

*Shudders*

 

[Nietzsche]

We could at least wind it back so that we can only completely annihilate the world 3 or 4 times over, instead of 30 or 40, though.

Honestly, once you've reached the "can destroy the world" stage, does it really matter how many times over you can do it?

After all the quality control in terms of ICBM maintenance and safety in the US is pretty woeful (eg. Blast doors propped open because of broken locking mechanism)

If the US standards are low, what's it like in Siberia???

*Shudders*

I'm thinking bicycle locks and-


Oh. That wasn't Siberia, that was..

Ooohhh...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honestly, once you've reached the "can destroy the world" stage, does it really matter how many times over you can do it?

It does, actually. More nukes equates to more chances for accidents/theft/etc.

I'm not too worried about the USA deciding to Nuke the world. But that doesn't mean I don't care about US nukes. A little, anyway.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honestly, once you've reached the "can destroy the world" stage, does it really matter how many times over you can do it?

You probably already know this, and it's less amusing (in a dark sense) than some things I've read, but...
The dangers of our aging nuclear arsenal

 

[esmith]

You probably already know this, and it's less amusing (in a dark sense) than some things I've read, but...
The dangers of our aging nuclear arsenal

So I would hazard to guess the answer is to spend the money to update our nuclear triad.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So I would hazard to guess the answer is to spend the money to update our nuclear triad.

I would think probably yes, but to be honest, that's not really what I'm talking about, primarily. Like any infrastructure, there is a maintenance cost associated with the existing nuclear arsenal. As highlighted in the article, there are fundamental maintenance issues quite apart from the arsenal's ability to actually provide the deterrence it is designed to provide.

Blast doors rusted to the point they can't be closed don't require 'updating of the nuclear arsenal' per se. Just a willingness to adequately spend on the existing weapons. Again, like any infrastructure, although a failing bridge could kill hundreds, a nuclear accident could potentially be far worse.

Reduction of the existing arsenal would limit required future maintenance spending. That may need to be paired with modernization of the bombing fleet (for example) or you could make a call to scrap the bombing fleet and rely on submarines and ICBMs. I am interested in military strategy and tactics, but it's strictly amateur hour, so I wouldn't presume to know.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would think that signing a petition like this actually means anything.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It means a whole lot more than if it wouldn't pass!

 

[YmirGF]

It means a whole lot more than if it wouldn't pass!

It's not like the leaders of the nuclear powers are going to pay it the slightest attention.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Certainly a lot more than if it didn't go well...

 

[robocop (actually)]

They have been increasing them, upgrading them, testing them, there are flashpoints, there are secondary targets, there is plasma we don't even know the physics of yet (meaning we don't even know what were doing when we test them), there are flash points, I've heard you have to release the material to diffuse them...

 

[robocop (actually)]

There have been times in world history where we successfully negotiated the drawback of nuclear arms.