Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Toward a Nuclear-free World?

  1. #1
    Regular WaltzingMatilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 07
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    94

    Toward a Nuclear-free World?

    Here’s an unhappy fact for your reading enjoyment. Nuclear annihilation is just around the corner and we’re not doing nearly enough to address the threat, so say George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn in the following WSJ Op-ed:

    Toward a Nuclear-Free World - WSJ.com

    Hopes, dreams, and the best of good intentions can’t undo the nuclear revolution, but what if a great power condominium was to lead the way? The aforementioned authors—backed up by a host of our finest diplomatic, military, and academic minds—make the case that international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons have floundered upon US-Russian discord. In their view, the way “toward a nuclear-free world” is a two way street between Washington and Moscow. Indeed, close coordination and sustained cooperation between the two nuclear powers is key to a robust international control regime. So, how do we get back on track?

    Whatever your view regarding the possibility of a “nuclear-free world,” prudence demands a more concerted effort on our part and many of their recommendations are sound. Nuclear arms reductions complemented by steps to increase the warning and decision times for launch are well worth pursuing. Small numbers on the order of 1,500 to 2,000 are probably adequate for deterrent purposes. Nor do we need existing operational plans for retaliation en masse, although I do have some qualms with the elimination of nuclear weapons designed for forward deployment. Nevertheless, the barriers to cooperation here are not insurmountable and positive movement along these lines could arguably improve our image and relations for little or no cost in security.

    So, what’s the problem? “COOPERATIVE” multilateral ballistic-missile defense and early warning systems are deeply problematic among unequal partners, let alone former adversaries. Setting aside questions of technological feasibility for the moment, who would have their finger on the trigger and what of the practical mechanics? Decision by committee perhaps? Is Russia likely to be anything other than a junior partner in such an arrangement? Cooperative missile defense requires true interdependence, which is notoriously difficult to achieve in matters of high politics. Anything less and Russia is bound to have reservations about US intentions, which doesn’t bode well for the progressive advancement of arms control. Given the specter of missile defense—MINUS COOPERATION IN FULL—Russia would likely counter with new additions to its arsenal. But even if some sort of limited bargain could be hashed out, what of the attendant difficulties associated with free riding? Could the protection of a shield embolden Russia in other areas of interest to the US? The problems with implementation are varied and many, all of which undercut the possibility for sustained cooperation over the long-term. If a nuclear-free world rests upon Russia and the US, we’ll be waiting an awful long time for that eventuality.

    Let’s assume, however, they can agree to lead. Will the rest of the world follow? Nuclear arms control is a luxury for the well armed. In contrast, second-tier states have to grapple with the superior striking power of their larger neighbors. To be sure, nuclear weapons offer the weak a way to neutralize the strong. As such, their measured and continued spread is all but certain, given power differentials among states operating in a self-help environment. Moreover, if new club members are going to become acclimated to nuclear reality, the "nuclear haves" will likely need the capability to retaliate in kind.

    Try as we might, we can’t escape the unfortunate fact that nuclear weapons are here to stay.

  2. #2
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,579
    nukes or not, mankind will always find a way to kill large number of men,
    we'd be much worst off if instead of nukes, we'd have what Tesla was working on, and i don't mean ray guns
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,297
    Nukes aren't about Russia-US. They're about India-China That's where we will see major growth of nuclear arsenals.

  4. #4
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Nukes aren't about Russia-US. They're about India-China That's where we will see major growth of nuclear arsenals.
    Oh give me a break. Combined, they have less than 300 warheads. By treaty, both the US and Russia are supposed to keep 2000 operational warheads each but that does not include the 8,000 kept in component form.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor Yusuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Dec 07
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Nukes aren't about Russia-US. They're about India-China That's where we will see major growth of nuclear arsenals.
    No way, India has just kept a minimum level as a deterrence considering its no first use policy. No one will see India make thousands of them. Dont know about China and what its intentions are as it tries to project itself as a world power in direct competition with the US. India-China relation is not like US-USSR/Russia

  6. #6
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Feb 05
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Yusuf View Post
    No way, India has just kept a minimum level as a deterrence considering its no first use policy. No one will see India make thousands of them. Dont know about China and what its intentions are as it tries to project itself as a world power in direct competition with the US. India-China relation is not like US-USSR/Russia
    If China starts significant expansions of its nuclear arsenal, India probably will too once its economy starts maturing and it begins to assert a place in the world.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Yusuf View Post
    No way, India has just kept a minimum level as a deterrence considering its no first use policy. No one will see India make thousands of them. Dont know about China and what its intentions are as it tries to project itself as a world power in direct competition with the US. India-China relation is not like US-USSR/Russia
    The Soviet Union also wasn't planning nuclear armageddon in an offensive manner. My thinking runs along the lines of that while US and USSR were isolationist and not major world powers militarily, they were not in much of a conflict, in fact there was considerable trade between Roosevelts USA and Stalins Russia. As soon as both became super power after the war, and could decide the fate of the world things changed. The situation with India and China reminds me of that. I think that once both become more powerful things will change.

  8. #8
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    The Soviet Union also wasn't planning nuclear armageddon in an offensive manner.
    You may be forgiven that you're 19. Hell, the Cold War was practically over when you were borned.

    From Plan of Actions of the Czechoslovak People’s Army for War Period

    In the first massive nuclear strike by the troops of the Missile Forces of the Czechoslovak Front, the front aviation and long-range aviation added to the front must destroy the main group of troops of the first operations echelon of the 7th US Army, its means of nuclear attack, and the centers of command and control of the aviation.

    During the development of the operation, the troops of the Missile Forces and aviation must destroy the approaching deep operative reserves, the newly discovered means of nuclear attack, and the enemy aviation.

    Altogether the operation will require the use of 131 nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs; specifically 96 missiles and 35 nuclear bombs. The first nuclear strike will use 41 missiles and nuclear bombs. The immediate task will require using 29 missiles and nuclear bombs. The subsequent task could use 49 missiles and nuclear bombs. 12 missiles and nuclear bombs should remain in the reserve of the Front.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor Yusuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Dec 07
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    2,126
    I would still say India will not go in for large scale induction of nukes even if China marches on. Why would we need thousands when probably even 10 are enough to destroy key cities which will act as a deterrent. I know more have to be stocked in case some are taken out in a pre-emtive strike but still about 200-300 should be enough and India is probably there already in terms of ready nukes and fissile material to make them

  10. #10
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Yusuf View Post
    Why would we need thousands when probably even 10 are enough to destroy key cities which will act as a deterrent.
    Some lessons here.

    You will not destroy 10 cities. You will destroy 1000 city blocks and you really don't know which city blocks you're destroying. Does not really help you that you aim for Beijing's Forbidden City only to hit the city slums. Beijing is still a functioning city.

    You will not have 10 effective nukes. You have 6. 4 will fail for whatever reason be it rocket failure or a failure in device ignition. Don't say Indian technology is that great. The 40% failure rate is estimated based upon superpower arsenals and the Indian arsenal is nowhere near as advance.

    You need 3 nukes per target in order to guarrantee destruction of the target. You have 10 nukes. That means the Chinese needs 30 nukes to kill them. They have 200.

  11. #11
    Regular WaltzingMatilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 07
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    94
    I'm also not entirely convinced emerging nuclear powers will follow the pattern set by the Soviet Union and US during the Cold War. Countries coming up the ranks have the benefit of others' experience, whereas the Soviet Union and US were in uncharted territory. Experience indicates that urge overkill doesn't appreciably improve deterrence. At some point, diminishing returns kick in.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor Yusuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Dec 07
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Some lessons here.

    You will not destroy 10 cities. You will destroy 1000 city blocks and you really don't know which city blocks you're destroying. Does not really help you that you aim for Beijing's Forbidden City only to hit the city slums. Beijing is still a functioning city.

    You will not have 10 effective nukes. You have 6. 4 will fail for whatever reason be it rocket failure or a failure in device ignition. Don't say Indian technology is that great. The 40% failure rate is estimated based upon superpower arsenals and the Indian arsenal is nowhere near as advance.

    You need 3 nukes per target in order to guarrantee destruction of the target. You have 10 nukes. That means the Chinese needs 30 nukes to kill them. They have 200.

    Well i did mention 10 will not be enough as some may be taken out in a 1st strike and the reason that you mentioned, therefore 200-300 should be a good enough number for deterrence. Not the thousands predicted by Feanor

  13. #13
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Here's another piece of stat for you. To buy and maintain a single wing/brigade/regt of nuclear forces (ie, 5 nuclear warheads), you can afford an entire armoured division.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Yusuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Dec 07
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Here's another piece of stat for you. To buy and maintain a single wing/brigade/regt of nuclear forces (ie, 5 nuclear warheads), you can afford an entire armoured division.
    Precisely why India will not invest in thousands of nukes. The Indian nuke policy is to maintain a Credible Minimum Deterrence on a triad of Land, Air and under sea. The first two have been established, and India is working on an under sea platform in the form of the ATV project and SLBM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You may be forgiven that you're 19. Hell, the Cold War was practically over when you were borned.
    I've seen you quote that on here before. Actually I think what I said was poorly worded. I did not mean that the USSR wasn't planning to use nukes to destroy military targets to clear the path for an advance. What I meant was that the USSR wasn't planning an offensive first strike against NATO without a reason (i.e. it wasn't planning to be the aggressor).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Considering a war with Iran
    By Ray in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 534
    Last Post: 29 Sep 09,, 01:10
  2. Should members of the Church of God go to war?
    By Ray in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08 Jan 09,, 01:49
  3. Why use force when talk works so well?
    By Leader in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05 Dec 05,, 08:29
  4. Developing countries’ goods trade share surges to 50-year peak
    By oneman28 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21 Apr 05,, 18:58
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22 Jun 04,, 19:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •