Mutual Deterrence vs. Unilateral Possession of Nuclear Arms

[Debater Slayer]

I'm interested to know what people think about unilateral possession of nuclear arms versus the concept of mutual deterrence. In your opinion, would it have been better that only one country (and its closest allies) had nukes after the development of the bomb, or was it better that other global powers managed to develop nuclear weapons as well?

My ideal preference is for nuclear disarmament, but this thread is about the scenario that has been the status quo since World War II, where nuclear weapons have already been developed and are not going to be dismantled for the foreseeable future.

 

[exchemist]

As I've just replied in the other thread, this is a bit of a "What if the sky were made of concrete?" question. Once a technology has been shown to be possible, it will get copied. Nobody can stop that. There could never be a scenario in which only one nation, or one "side", had such weapons. The science was always going to be out there for anyone to read, even if the specific technical designs of bombs was kept secret.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As I've just replied in the other thread, this is a bit of a "What if the sky were made of concrete?" question. Once a technology has been shown to be possible, it will get copied. Nobody can stop that. There could never be a scenario in which only one nation, or one "side", had such weapons. The science was always going to be out there for anyone to read, even if the specific technical designs of bombs was kept secret.

I don't disagree, but... come on! Let me practice my hobby of analyzing and (over)thinking hypotheticals and thought experiments!

 

[YmirGF]

Due to the uneasy balance in the world today, I would certainly not be inclined in changing the current setup anytime soon. There is simply no reason for ANY emerging nation who does not currently have nuclear weapons to manufacture their own. None of the countries with nukes are likely to use them, so fears for one's safety are misguided.

The one option that is completely unacceptable, to my thinking, is option 4. (With 1 and 2 not too far behind, however.)

 

[exchemist]

I don't disagree, but... come on! Let me practice my hobby of analyzing and (over)thinking hypotheticals and thought experiments!

Well OK. For most of my adult life I think I would have slept easily if only the USA had such weapons.

BUT, if that were true today I would be deeply worried. I do not trust the USA any more to remain a rational actor, or to uphold either democracy or the rule of international law.

 

[Debater Slayer]

None of the countries with nukes are likely to use them, so fears for one's safety are misguided.

I agree with your post except for this part. Unfortunately, given the nuclear saber-rattling in which Putin has been engaging and the (remote) possibility of a second Trump term, I'm far from reassured that we're safe from nuclear war. Those are not stable or level-headed individuals, and I'm worried that in Putin's case, his egomaniacal desire to win the war on Ukraine could lead him to use nukes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well OK. For most of my adult life I think I would have slept easily if only the USA had such weapons.

BUT, if that were true today I would be deeply worried. I do not trust the USA any more to remain a rational actor, or to uphold either democracy or the rule of international law.

I would feel a lot safer even today, during the Ukraine war and the Taiwan dispute, if Trump or someone similarly impulsive from the current GOP had no chance of becoming POTUS again. I still remember Trump's threats of a nuclear war on North Korea that he made via Twitter, and I also worry that Putin might feel more emboldened to use nukes during a Trump presidency.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am entering the "Get off my lawn!!!" phase of life so I am leaning towards option D.

Armageddon out of here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am entering the "Get off my lawn!!!" phase of life so I am leaning towards option D.

Armageddon out of here.

Certainly a different kind of "chain reaction."

 

[exchemist]

I agree with your post except for this part. Unfortunately, given the nuclear saber-rattling in which Putin has been engaging and the (remote) possibility of a second Trump term, I'm far from reassured that we're safe from nuclear war. Those are not stable or level-headed individuals, and I'm worried that in Putin's case, his egomaniacal desire to win the war on Ukraine could lead him to use nukes.

I suppose one could argue that it is only because Russia has nukes that we are not already in WW3 over Ukraine. NATO is at great pains not to get involved and not even to supply weapons that would be used to attack Russian territory... because they have nukes!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly a different kind of "chain reaction."

What a drag!!

Okay, that pun probably went over the heads of almost everyone that did not grow up on a farm.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What a drag!!

Okay, that pun probably went over the heads of almost everyone that did not grow up on a farm.

I got it even though I didn't grow up on a farm. Not sure whether to be happy or sad about that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suppose one could argue that it is only because Russia has nukes that we are not already in WW3 over Ukraine. NATO is at great pains not to get involved and not even to supply weapons that would be used to attack Russian territory... because they have nukes!

I view the Ukraine war as a perfect example of why nukes would ideally be dismantled. If anyone used them, they would cause immense destruction beyond military targets and widespread loss of innocent life, which could constitute an act of genocide depending on the yield of the weapon. If they're not used, the mere threat can allow imperialists and warmongers like Putin to get away with far less resistance than they would face if they didn't possess nukes.

In my opinion, the existence of nukes is just a no-win situation in more than one way. The problem is that once a country has them, others will want to develop their own. As was pointed out in Oppenheimer, the USSR and others ended up developing nuclear weapons because the US had its own, despite the necessity of the Manhattan Project at the time due to the risk of Nazis' developing nukes first.

 

[YmirGF]

What a drag!!

Okay, that pun probably went over the heads of almost everyone that did not grow up on a farm.

I have a very large hay field on the other side of the road, opposite my house, and the farmer took that type of rig over the whole area a couple of weeks back. Huge John Deer tractor.

 

[LuisDantas]

There isn't really any acceptable choice between the four listed.

Nuclear weapons are simply way too destructive, and national governments way too irrational, for the later to be worth of keeping the former.

Given that nuclear weapons are unavoidable (apparently the technical knowledge necessary to build them isn't all that secret anymore) we would need some sort of international organization with a better system of keeping their use unattractive.

Mutual Assured Destruction doesn't really cut it; it was that doctrine that led to the nuclear arms race, a system that has no mechanisms for slowing down its pace.

Fat chance that I of all people will have a halfway workable solution for that situation, but I will try anyway.

First of all, I think that there is a very strong need for nuclear weapons to be well documented. Any indications of secret nuclear weapons must be kept terribly inconvenient even for the most unbalanced power mongers. Perhaps a mechanism for that could be some sort of heavy, long lasting commercial and diplomatic repercussion on a per-hidden-head basis. Or strong restrictions of access to communications, including banking systems. Or obligatory exchange of a number of citizens with some foreign power not of their choice. The goal is to have some sort of consequences that is so inconvenient and so avoidable by simply refusing to hide nuclear weapons' existence that it won't happen.

What about the well documented, openly extant weapons? Tax the innards out of them. Require a certain number of soldiers for UN peacekeeping forces in exchange for each nuclear head. Above all, spread the numbers and expense bills for their construction and keeping for all that could want to see them. Particularly opposition political parties and separatist movements. If the people have to bleed to build fear, at least have them see the blood flow.

Hopefully that would help in creating the very necessary disgust of any community in realizing that their governments keep nuclear arsenals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a very large hay field on the other side of the road, opposite my house, and the farmer took that type of rig over the whole area a couple of weeks back. Huge John Deer tractor.

I grew up a good part of my life on what used to be a Grade B dairy farm. Grade B milk was not quiiiiiite as safe as Grade A milk. It was an old fashioned farm that my dad bought when Grade B was just about deed. He got it cheap because it was not that good of a farm. It had all sorts of features that got in the way of farming. Such as a wooded area. Hills. A couple of creeks and a good amount of lake shore. But it was a great area to raise kids. He also sold it for a nice piece of change when he sold it as not being a farm. We had a a John Deere B tractor. It was not "Huge". Nor could it haul the sort of drag that a modern tractor could. I would say it was about four times the surface area of the small one in the picture. That would go behind a more powerful lawn tractor.

 

[YmirGF]

I grew up a good part of my life on what used to be a Grade B dairy farm. Grade B milk was not quiiiiiite as safe as Grade A milk. It was an old fashioned farm that my dad bought when Grade B was just about deed. He got it cheap because it was not that good of a farm. It had all sorts of features that got in the way of farming. Such as a wooded area. Hills. A couple of creeks and a good amount of lake shore. But it was a great area to raise kids. He also sold it for a nice piece of change when he sold it as not being a farm. We had a a John Deere B tractor. It was not "Huge". Nor could it haul the sort of drag that a modern tractor could. I would say it was about four times the surface area of the small one in the picture. That would go behind a more powerful lawn tractor.

You get the coveted "Awesome Possum Award" of the week for this post. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Koldo]

Due to the uneasy balance in the world today, I would certainly not be inclined in changing the current setup anytime soon. There is simply no reason for ANY emerging nation who does not currently have nuclear weapons to manufacture their own. None of the countries with nukes are likely to use them, so fears for one's safety are misguided.

The one option that is completely unacceptable, to my thinking, is option 4. (With 1 and 2 not too far behind, however.)

Then why is everyone-ish playing the scared cat, afraid to bombard russian troops in Ukraine's soil if not the fear of getting kissed by nuclear weapons?

 

[Koldo]

I'm interested to know what people think about unilateral possession of nuclear arms versus the concept of mutual deterrence. In your opinion, would it have been better that only one country (and its closest allies) had nukes after the development of the bomb, or was it better that other global powers managed to develop nuclear weapons as well?

My ideal preference is for nuclear disarmament, but this thread is about the scenario that has been the status quo since World War II, where nuclear weapons have already been developed and are not going to be dismantled for the foreseeable future.

Option D, for sure. It is what would prevent reckless invasions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unilateral ownership is best, but only if it's one of....
Revoltistan
USA
Canuckistan

And I'm not so sure of that 1st one.