Atomic Weapons: Now what?

[Dragoon Fighter]

Preface​

Maybe it is because I have been playing a lot of Metal Gear Solid lately, but nuclear weapons have been on my mind. As we know it would not take much to put the world into nuclear winter, hell it would not take much to kill off the human race. Of course many countries currently have the tools of the human race demise including my own country (America).

My Opinion​

I heard that there are several groups that promote reducing the worlds nuclear arsenal down to zero. While I agree with them in theory, that it would be great to get the keys of the Apocalypse out of human hands, is that realistic? No and for one simple reason, humans for the most part are not logical. That would be the smart thing to do, but it is never going to happen. If you do not have nuclear weapons then you are at a huge disadvantage against countries that do, no country that already has the advantage of nuclear weapons is going to give up that upper hand.

The Topic​

So I have a question to pose to all of you: Now what? What do we do, IMO this is still a threat today, and should be addressed in some form or fashion, but how? What is your opinion on how we should deal with these weapons of mass destruction?

 

[ballin4life]

It's not that humans aren't logical, it's that they are too logical. They won't give up their own weapons because there is no benefit for them. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

It's not that humans aren't logical, it's that they are too logical. They won't give up their own weapons because there is no benefit for them. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

I agree. I was typing this up on two different debate forms, but realizing some errors I edited one while forgetting to edit the other (In this case I forgot to edit the world smash forums one, will edit it later, but not right now). You are correct, but the problem of a destructive weapon remains, what are we to do with such weapons?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think it goes beyond "I don't want to give them up". You're forgetting mutually assured destruction, which IMO is kind of a big deal for ensuring peace in the world. Nobody wants to go to war with a major country because if they do, they get nuked.

 

[Sieguest]

I agree with BPC. The presence of nukes in countries makes other, potentially aggressive countries think "Well if I go and try to take them down I'm going to get blown to smithereens." Even in the case of all countries in question having nukes, the world is so interdependent amongst each other that to nuke one person is to bring your own country to shambles, as well as subsequently be nuked by another country and the cycle just goes on down the line until we're just a desolate wasteland.

Nuclear presence among many world actors+Globalization=Peace?

 

[Savon]

Not much to say about nukes. Everybody has them, but nobody wants to use them because there is no winner of a global nuclear conflict. Knowing that this will happen, no country in their right mind will use their nukes. It is basically a mexican standoff on a global level.

The problem occurs when you have a crazy illogical nation that is still willing to use their nukes, but in that case I am pretty sure the rest of the world would put them down pretty soundly in such an event. Nukes do not really scare me until they get into the hands of terrorist group since they have a tendency of being suicidal and do not operate under a specific government. THAT is the only time when nukes scare me.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Not much to say about nukes. Everybody has them, but nobody wants to use them because there is no winner of a global nuclear conflict. Knowing that this will happen, no country in their right mind will use their nukes. It is basically a mexican standoff on a global level.

The problem occurs when you have a crazy illogical nation that is still willing to use their nukes, but in that case I am pretty sure the rest of the world would put them down pretty soundly in such an event. Nukes do not really scare me until they get into the hands of terrorist group since they have a tendency of being suicidal and do not operate under a specific government. THAT is the only time when nukes scare me.

Yeah, mutually assured destruction is a pretty big deterrent. However, although terrorists are worthy of concern when it comes to nuclear weapons, what about a rogue state, such as North Korea? Their "Dear Leader" looks pretty insane to me, and I believe that they have developed and tested missiles and nuclear warheads, but they haven't tested them together. The thought of North Korea armed with ICBMs loaded with nuclear warheads is quite scary. That said, however, I think the reason that they want nukes is to play a power game, to hold the world to ransom in return for aid money or attention.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Found this,thought I'd share it.

 

[Sieguest]

Found this,thought I'd share it.

While the article itself is a bit fanatical it does drive the big point home that nuclear war is basically the human race taking a dive into catastrophe.

@Bob: I believe the factor that spells the difference between the danger of a rogue state in comparison to a terrorist group is the circumstances. Diving a bit into Savon's idea, leaders of rogue states come into a position of sovereignty (of any level) and generally wish to retain this sovereignty for as long as possible or expand it through whatever means necessary. The powerhouse in a rogue state has a lot more to lose than terrorist groups that only have a radical belief to their possession. In that respect, I agree with the idea North Korea, and even other rogue states, want nukes in order to gain greater world influence.

 

[gm jack]

The difference between North Korea and most other states is that the korean leaders tend to be insane, with a whole country their to prop up their ego. While their intentions for developing them are more likely to be political, they will be successful because they are more likely to be the ones who start firing. So pretty much what Bob said.

Terrorists are different, because they are fairly exempt from MAD because, who do you nuke if terrorists launch their own? They have no places where you can fire them for tactical or human cost, without huge losses in civilian life. MAD only applies in situations where every party has targets of roughly equal value. Otherwise, all the loses will be one sided.