Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation

Board under construction.

Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 4 2010, 04:54 AM (265 Views)
Vlad	Apr 4 2010, 04:54 AM Post #1
Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	So, on Friday I was invited (and went to) an all-day discussion with around 20 other students from my school on nuclear non-proliferation at a National Lab. We focused on the U.S., China, and Russia, since they are the major players in this sense at the moment. For the morning we wandered around discussing issues with each other and writing on some whiteboards, one with "areas of tension," one with "areas of cooperation," and one with something alone the lines of "negotiation options." Int he afternoon we split up into small groups and tried to from plans on how we can begin to deal with nuclear non-proliferation. It was an amazing day, to say the least. I also gained even more respect for Obama and his Administration (since Russia and the U.S. are reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles DRASTICALLY after a recent negotiations session), after seeing how complex and difficult these ideas really are. So, I was wondering: what are you opinions on nuclear proliferation/non-proliferation, whether in relation to China and Russia, or just form the U.S.'s point of view, or whatever? How do you think we might go about it? Should we even do it? Etc... Edited by Vlad, Apr 4 2010, 04:55 AM.



Thinvader747	Apr 4 2010, 11:45 AM Post #2
I can seeeeeee youuuuuuu Posts: 1,699 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	If by this, you mean "get rid of nuclear weaponry", I think yes. I won't say too much until I'm certain I know what this topic is about though...
	"The best thing about the British is our ability to laugh at ourselves. By ourselves I mean other people. And by laugh I mean invade." - Jimmy Carr


Vlad	Apr 4 2010, 03:39 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	It's about non-proliferation, and reduction as well. Eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is a good idea to talk about as well, including the feasibility of that idea. The question is, how do we go about it? Is it even possible to get all nations, developing and not, to agree to reduce nuclear weapons with the current situations in the world? SHOULD, say, the U.S. try to be an example, or is that too risky of an idea? Edited by Vlad, Apr 4 2010, 03:46 PM.



Deleted User	Apr 4 2010, 05:08 PM Post #4
Deleted User	convince everyone to play target practice with pluto. tell them that you will replace all the nukes they use. after they are all gone into space, say "april fools!" and run like the wind.
Deleted User


Peter Porky	Apr 4 2010, 06:11 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,400 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: Apr 4, 2010	I think everyone should have a stockpile of nuclear arms... if everyone has a vast amount of weapons that could obliterate either side... going to wars would cause drastic domestic problems, and wars would cease to exist... A peace bound in barbed wire is still peace.



Vlad	Apr 4 2010, 06:28 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	But what about extremist terrorist organizations? With such large stockpiles of weapons, the chance of even one getting into the hands of terrorists goes up and up. That's a very serious consideration for the U.S.and Russia right now, as both have terrorist problems (you should know the American, but the Russian comes mostly from Chechnya). And I have to disagree with what you said. there are "rouge states" (Like North Korea) that are incredibly unpredictable, and can't be trusted to have so much power. All it takes is one extremist person in charge of one weapon to spark a nuclear war. Also, everyone doesn't have a vast amount of weapons. Most countries have no nuclear weapons. The struggle to create all these new weapons to level the playing field could cripple economies, and would in the end do an enormous amount o damage to poorer countries, who will rush to try and get to the level of more technologically advanced nations. The whole world would be in a state of constant readiness to go to war. That kind of high-tension atmosphere is exactly what leads to wars, because somethin WILL break down somewhere. It always happens. some spark will set off a war, and if everyone has so many nukes, that spark could very will obliterate civilization as we know it. The only path I see is to slowly lower the amount of nuclear weapons between the major nuclear powers (U.S., China, Russia, France, U.K.--but especially Russia and the U.S.). Once we are on the same level as other nations, then we can begin unilateral reduction, hopefully. Increasing weapons just raises tension.



Peter Porky	Apr 4 2010, 06:42 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,400 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: Apr 4, 2010	'rougue states' would mind being nuked don't you think? Extremists... well idk... but with everyone in possession of nuclear arms, people could just dedicate almost their entire military to guarding them. The whole world would be in a constant fear to go to war, fear of total obliteration on either side. Or... we can make a world-wide alliance, if anyone invades someone, the whole world invades them. Peace bound by a threat is the only way. 100 years of peace came from the Congress of Vienna... We should hold something like The Congress of Vienna, making every country equally powerful and making them at a great disadvantage if they go to war. Edited by Peter Porky, Apr 4 2010, 06:52 PM.



carterv	Apr 5 2010, 12:26 AM Post #8
Carter V. Posts: 3,500 Group: Members Member #4 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	I think that nuclear weaponry should be avoided at all costs, and if possible eliminated. I don't think it will happen, though.



Thinvader747	Apr 7 2010, 04:45 PM Post #9
I can seeeeeee youuuuuuu Posts: 1,699 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	I know what Peter is trying to say... But Vlad is right. One power hungry moron would ruin it for everyone. And there are way too many of those around for something like this to work. A worldwide treaty would probably be the best option, I agree with that.
	"The best thing about the British is our ability to laugh at ourselves. By ourselves I mean other people. And by laugh I mean invade." - Jimmy Carr


Peter Porky	Apr 7 2010, 06:48 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,400 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: Apr 4, 2010	A power hungry moron wouldn't be stupid enough to get high enough to such a position, and would lose power by getting crushed by: A. His country getting obliterated by nukes. B. His country getting invaded by a global alliance of every other country. A worldwide treaty can easily be broken... however, a worldwide threat wouldn't be dismissed by a country of any size.



Vlad	Apr 11 2010, 06:10 AM Post #11
Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	You miss the point, Peter. The fate of the person who launches the nuke is irrelevant. The very fact that they launched one could very well be enough to cause other countries to take advantage of the situation. Also, if the weapon was launched by a nation, then they would likely be able to retaliate in kind to an attack (as most nations with even a small nuclear arsenal all have retaliatory abilities--you can't destroy all of the sites at once). Also, this system of constant threat would inevitably lead to immense destruction and deaths. That's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the answer to every problem is to blow it to hell. Quote: B. His country getting invaded by a global alliance of every other country. And how well can an alliance hold up like this? Countries would constantly be trying to make secret treaties and alliances to gain more power in some way. That's how situations like this nearly always work (I mean, just look at World War One and how nations were drawn in there by all their secret and not-so-secret treaties). Sure, the idea makes sense; if someone disobeys the rules, we punish them. But sometimes people don't care about those consequences. Terrorist groups obviously don't. Oh yes, and the 100 years of peace after Vienna was not quite as peaceful as it seemed. There were no major European wars, true, but there were dozens of revolutions, uprisings and revolts all across Europe, often violent.



Peter Porky	Apr 11 2010, 05:44 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,400 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: Apr 4, 2010	"And how well can an alliance hold up like this? Countries would constantly be trying to make secret treaties and alliances to gain more power in some way. That's how situations like this nearly always work (I mean, just look at World War One and how nations were drawn in there by all their secret and not-so-secret treaties). Sure, the idea makes sense; if someone disobeys the rules, we punish them. But sometimes people don't care about those consequences. Terrorist groups obviously don't." A country allied to every country wouldn't have the possibility of allying with anyone else, and terrorist groups wouldn't get their hands on nukes. "You miss the point, Peter. The fate of the person who launches the nuke is irrelevant." You are missing the point, under these circumstances, noone will launch a nuke. Its like shooting someone with a hundred other people having their guns pointed at you. "But sometimes people don't care about those consequences. Terrorist groups obviously don't." And which terrorist groups can get hold on a nuke when the entire countries military is guarding it? "There were no major European wars, true, but there were dozens of revolutions, uprisings and revolts all across Europe, often violent." So? small revolutions < continental wars.



Vlad	Apr 11 2010, 09:48 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	Quote: A country allied to every country wouldn't have the possibility of allying with anyone else Wrong. Countries will very likely go underneath the noses of those they are allied with to try and make different alliances and deals to get more power. You should study more international politics. Quote: You are missing the point, under these circumstances, noone will launch a nuke. Its like shooting someone with a hundred other people having their guns pointed at you. Can you stop repeating what I say? It's really annoying. I'm not saying you have to stop, but please, don't. Of course someone will launch a nuke. Haven't you heard of terrorists? The leaders of such groups often indoctrinate the idea that dying for their cause is right and will even get them a cushy spot in the afterlife. There will always be someone crazy or determined enough to press the button. Quote: And which terrorist groups can get hold on a nuke when the entire countries military is guarding it? And why would a country do that? The entire military can't guard nuclear weapons. The world could never come to such a point. Nations will be too paranoid about attacks--and if you say that nuclear weapons are obsolete, then some country will take advantage of that and build up conventional arms, which will draw the military of nations guarding their nuclear weapons away to put on a show of force at their borders to deter--or even repel--invasions. The high-alert and tense atmosphere means that countries could not afford to just leave their military guarding nuclear weapons. The threat of conventional arms skyrockets, and with that thew safety of nuclear weapons becomes somewhat less. This world order cannot lead to any kind of lasting peace. Also, you are assuming that there is little corruption--an entirely untrue idea in our world, and one which won't get much better any time soon. So, man nations that rush to get nukes will be rampant with corruption in their government. Such a country wouldn't be able to control their weapons as well because people in power would often be trying to make deal to get more and more money--greed is a powerful motivator, after all. Also, consider the resources and money used to build these nuclear weapons, to become equal with the major world powers (as countries would want to do if there was no chance of disarmament). That cost would leave a country hard-pressed to support a conventional military, especially one strong enough to efficiently guard large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. In addition to that, with so many countries in possession of nuclear weapons, the technology would become so much more common, and the information on how these weapons are built wouldn't be difficult to get with the right power, money, or connections (and information is easier to take than an actual weapon, after all). All a group would need is some fissionable material, which would be less guarded than the nuclear weapons, and so easier to take and use. Quote: So? small revolutions < continental wars. First of all, they weren't all that small. And if those revolutions had been more driven, they could very well have toppled most of Europe's governments, thus leading to extremists in power and even period of anarchy as different groups fought for control of governments. Revolutions can lead to worse consequences than wars. Don't underestimate the power of a people pissed off at another group (just look at the Nazis).



Peter Porky	Apr 11 2010, 10:03 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,400 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: Apr 4, 2010	"Wrong. Countries will very likely go underneath the noses of those they are allied with to try and make different alliances and deals to get more power. You should study more international politics." ...Are you being stupid on purpose? How can someone allied with everyone be allied with anyone else? "Haven't you heard of terrorists?" I have, I've already countered this point twice, perhaps you should actually read what I say next time? "And why would a country do that? The entire military can't guard nuclear weapons." How so? If you have the rest of the world holding your back, you can devote your entire military to guarding your nukes, like I said. "First of all, they weren't all that small" In relativity to continental wars, yes they were. Revolutions are domestic, not international. ---- Wars are always started with the will to win it, noone will start a war with the entire world if they know they will be immediatly obliterated; corruption, stupidity, terrorism, or not.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Politics/Debate · Next Topic »