Is the possibility of mutual, nuclear annihilation a deterrent?

[pinto]

I'm 60 years old, remember the cold war well. At that time there was a line of thought that the threat of mutual annihilation inherent in nuclear weapon stockpiles was a deterrent of sorts to their use.

And that possibility led to some discussion and back down on nuclear arsenals.

Thought of this today in context of ongoing reports / speculation about Iran and North Korea. They want to join the nuclear club.

Should we support or limit our opposition to a nation's intent to develop a nuclear arms program?

If everyone has a nuke does that put the development issue to rest and move the discussion on to what's the point?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Hi Pinto.

These are different times, I think, and what had been a two party superpower MAD fest devolved (or evolved) into a multiparty regional pissing match with less fear of global apocalypse.

I'm loathe to try to tell other nations that they can't do what we did almost 70 years ago.

I don't have solutions, but I do think that some of the elements that have access might not be thinking in terms of survivability so much as being the winner at any expense.

I say this knowing full well that it's an ethnocentric stance to take.

[pinto]

2. Hi. Agree, these are different times. It's not US / USSR standoff anymore. Or simply East / West.

Somewhere along the line of the recent focus on nuclear armaments my mind ran - "Eh, we've had them for years. Why not accept that everyone else will eventually?"

Sort of a fatalistic sidetrack.

[Revanchist]

3. It's only a deterrent

It's only a deterrent if the people with their finger on the button are sane and rational, otherwise, all bets are off.

[pinto]

4. Yeah, it's all pretty relative at some point.

[Diclotican]

5. pinto

pinto

When it was just a few nations who had the capacity to have nuclear weapons - it was more easy to have a "stand off" when it come to nuclear weapons.. Even as UK, France and PRC got nuclear weapons - it was small compared to the nukes USSR and USA had in their arsenal - and both sides understood that an nuclear attack would end in annihilation of both nations - and of the world itself..

Today we have a few more nations who have made them self a nuclear weapons nations.. Country's like Israel - India, Pakistan and now DKPR have all made, and maintaining nuclear stockpiles of weapons.. And some of this are of the unstable sort of nations.. Both India and Pakistan have sectarian, political and economical instability - and also border problems with each others and with PRC - in a tight spot they might decide it was a smart move to use nuclear weapons.. And then we have DKPR, who have threaten their nabour - and the rest of the world of a nuclear war if their demands is not meet - the problem is maybe that they have not being telling anyone about their demands yet.. Or the new leader in DKPR is just nuts and believe for real he could win a war with ROK and USA..

The more nations, specially the unstable ones who have nuclear weapons - the more possible is it that it could and will be used someway down the road - maybe not this time - but next time it might be used.. Out of "pride" or out of desperation...

The big players of the cold war understood the danger of nuclear weapons - even if they was locked into a spiral of larger stockpiles of nuclear weapons - and the danger of a nuclear attack in the future they do understood the danger - and had political leaders who was able, and willing to hold back when the generals wanted to use nuclear weapons.. Already in the first korean war, some generals was rather outspoken about the willingness of nuclear weapons - and was shut down by the political leadership in the US. The same happened under the Cuba missile crisis - who ended when political leaders, and their diplomats managed to keep the line open - and to let the other part understood that it was a danger nuclear weapons could be used - out of a mistake of by anger.. But it was BAD when it was on its worse.. Many from that time have after the facts written about how fearfully they was about it all - and at the worst, feared they was not able to hold the fog of wars in hand... They managed - but just that...

The new, and small players of the world like DKPR, India, Pakistan is using the nuclear weapons, more or less as a leverage to make sure others will not attack them.. Specially in the case of DKPR, who have been on the news for the last 4 weeks or so - the issue of nuclear weapons is about making sure they exist as a nation - at least looking from the side of the DKPR. Looking from the outside, it looks more or less like insanity to spend billions of valuable hard currency on nuclear weapons, and missiles - when most of the people are living in dirth poor conditions, and where most of the industry is either collapsed or working on a very slow pace - mostly because the quotas the industry have is to small - and the energy they have are not enough to keep the industry going on a larger scale..

What the world need - is more programs like Start I and Start two ,who was instrumental in making sure many nuclear weapons and missiles to put them on the other side of the map was destroyed and made the world a safer place relativity speaking.. What we need is to force nations who want, or have nuclear weapons to give them up - even the 5 big ones on the UN Security Council - and that will take a long time to do.. Or at least be sure the stockpiles each of the nuclear nations have - is on a scale where it is not longer a direct danger to anyone.. The US and Russia is working together to make sure at least most of the systems is either deactivated - or make sure it take time to put it together to be used... But even then, both sides have enough nuclear weapons on 5-10 and 30 minutes standby to really ruin the day if used..

Nuclear weapons should be banned - but as long as small and bigger players in the world believe they can make others do their biddings or to treating to use it against "bad nations" the danger of some using nuclear weapons in anger or by design is there.. It was bad under parts of the cold war - it is maybe worse today - as unstable nations have the knowhow - and ability to maintaining nuclear weapons for the next 20-30 maybe 40 year ahead..

After all - the possibility of a nuclear Holocaust should make everyone shudder...

Diclotican

[Hippo_Tron]

6. First off, there's no mutual assured destruction...

The United States still has an arsenal that could basically blow up the entire world. North Korea and Iran (if they get a bomb) will have one that can maybe destroy a big city assuming it ever reaches its target. They get to destroy Tel Aviv or Seoul, we get to turn their entire nation into glass.

But one of many problems with letting everyone have a nuke is the possibility of non-state actors getting their hands on one. Al Qaeda doesn't control a state. Therefore we can't just go blow them up if they do something to us. Lord knows we've been trying for over 10 years.

[pinto]

7. Good point about non-state groups.

[mythology]

8. In addition to this,

I think even if all nukes could be limited to just states, even states with "rational" leadership, there would be incentive for every country to find a way around that. Either a defense against it, or a way to preemptively strike. France thought the Maginot line was a great deterrent to Germany attacking them.

I think the biggest arena now isn't in building bigger bombs, but instead in cyber warfare. Which presents a different level of threat.

[bluedigger]

9. Only between actors with equivalent capabilities.

It was an effective, if economically crippling, strategy for the USA, USSR, and PRC during the Cold War, but the equation doesn't really hold for our relations vis-a-vis lesser powers. You really have to put yourself in the perspective of other states to determine whether or not nuclear proliferation is in their interest. India and Pakistan have similar capabilities, for example, and are practicing a form of MAD with each other, but neither could threaten to use MAD as a diplomatic ploy with the Big Three with any credibility.

The danger with the proliferation of nuclear States is in their internal security and capability to safeguard their weapons from falling into rogue hands with no risk or responsibility to the international community. That's a pretty good reason for us to discourage it whenever possible.