Recently I read in the newspaper that the Bush administration has given the OK to developing new and improved nuclear weapons. Can anyone tell me why we are doing this? WHY?!?!

Can you imagine what it would be like for a person from 1899 to be suddenly whisked forward in time and shown a nuclear weapons silo.

I can just hear the tour guide..."Now this is considered the highlight of the tour. Located in this room is the ability to destroy the possibility of tomorrow. Notice how the color of the maroon wallpaper playfully interacts with the color of the conically shaped warheads. That was my suggestion. (waits for applause) Thank you all for coming and cookies and milk will be served in the exit corridor."

Wouldn't the person from 1899 say something like..."Um..excuse me Mrs. Guide...but what was that part about destroying tomorrow?"

Why aren't we asking that question? Have we become so accustomed to the concept that we don't even notice when NEW and IMPROVED ways of destroying tomorrow are being created?

The fact that humanity completely lacks the wisdom and foresight to see the folly of even the existence of these weapons saddens me. The fact that no one has even made a fuss about the furthering of this folly SCARES me.

1) This was announced over a year ago -- going on a year and a half I believe.

2) The purpose of the study for new weapons would be to create a weapon that would not have as wide an area of effect capable of penetrating bunkers which they currently don't have - your alarmist post makes it seem like they're creating one with a wider scale of destruction which is exactly opposite of what is being done.

3) At the same time of the announcement of the research they announced they would start to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons by over 2/3; getting rid of approximately 4,300 weapons.

So, I think your post is potentially misleading. If someone wants to do a searh you can probably find it in the Washington post around Feb 2002 - quite some time ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3025737.stm

Congress moves closer to approving a new generation of small tactical nuclear weapons, despite the warnings of arms control experts.

The US House of Representatives looks set to approve funds for the research and development of a new generation of small tactical nuclear weapons which could be used to attack deep bunkers holding weapons of mass destruction.

The House Armed Services Committee is voting the money as part of the $400bn defence authorisation bill which will be reported out on Tuesday.

The shift of policy has been sought by the Pentagon since last summer, when it began to develop plans to reshape the US nuclear arsenal to take account of the new doctrine of pre-emption.

Democrats warned that it would make harder to contain the spread of nuclear weapons. "This is a major shift of policy," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. "It makes a mockery of our argument around the world that other countries - India, Pakistan - should not test and North Korea and Iran should not obtain (nuclear weapons)."

"We have tried for 50-plus years to make these weapons unthinkable," Democratic Senator Jack Reed said. "And now we're talking about giving them a tactical application. It's a dangerous departure."

The new weapons under consideration include low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, which yield under five kilotons, less than one-third of the first atomic bomb used at Hiroshima, and a "robust nuclear earth penetrator", designed to bury deep into the ground before exploding. The even smaller nuclear weapons, with yields of under five kilotons could be used against above-ground weapons production facilities.

They would take longer to develop, and might require underground testing - something that the Congressional committees also authorised. I guess you mean this new generation of tiny little atom-bombs, which are so tiny and go so deep into the ground, that they even make tactical sense and may be actually used in an military conflict. A kind of conventional A-Bomb.

Guess, China wants them now too.

Edit:

"We have tried for 50-plus years to make these weapons unthinkable," Democratic Senator Jack Reed said. "And now we're talking about giving them a tactical application. It's a dangerous departure."

It's like a cultural taboo. Have a-bombs to threaten, but never think about using it.

Edit 2:

400bn$ = 400 000 000 000

US-Population (approx): 280 000 000

Per head: 1'429 $

Chinese-population (approx): 1 100 000 000

Per head: 364 $

I bet China is going to win the weapon race. If the world exists long enough.

[ May 25, 2003, 02:55: Message edited by: Yago ]

What do you think would happen if the USA announced we were completely disarming our nuclear arsenal and banning the development of these weapons in the future?

Would the world follow suit?

I for one would vote for a true LEADER who tried to accomplish this NEEDED task.

There was sadness in Albert's eyes for a reason...
Ever since 1945 the clock has been ticking.

Do you have the courage to live in a nuclear free world?

When I meet people of Chinese or Russian ancestry I fail to see the burning desire to obliterate our cities and the world as well.

Fear is going to kill us all one day...not the N. Koreans or whoever else is put into the psycological catagory of "the others" and therefore reduced to less than human standards.
N. Korea does not want to end the world. No one does. So why have we all agreed to live with the possibility?

It doesn't make sense...

Edit: I know what I've wrote may have come across as childish and unintelligent, but the whole nuclear issue bothers me very deeply. It seems to me that humanity has created a collective ego that is simply dangerous. In my own personal life, my ego has always been my greatest enemy. It still is. I would be willing to bet my personal truth applies to the larger scale.

What kind of person looks at the power to destroy millions and millions of people with a single act and then thinks to themselves, "Yeah, I can handle that responsibility."

Not me. I don't honestly believe anyone truly can. I don't believe humanity can.

[ May 25, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

Yago -- You and I agree on most things, but not on this one. We would win in terms of tax dollars. One of the reasons why so many US companies are moving to China is the low wages. Why pay an American worker a living wage of $15.00 an hour when you can move to China and pay them .30 or .40 an hour? Plus not worry about minimum wages. Not only that, but they don't have to care about the environment, nor are unions a problem. That is why I can't bear to listen to ignorant people who rant about how big corps want to create jobs for US workers.

I should say that in terms of nukes, that no one ever really wins. Don't anyone tell me about WWII, because then we were the only one who had them. Things are different now.

If an American leader in the forseeable future ever really decides to completely dismantle the nuclear arsenal and attempts to do so he should be impeached and tried for treason. IMO.

Laches -- No one is suggesting that. But let me ask you this: What would be your feeling about a prez who decided to use them against a nation that had not used them on us? IMO, that person should be impeached by humanity.

Laches -- No one is suggesting that I thought Late-Night-Thinker suggested that, am I wrong? Also, I could think of scenarios where I would support using nuclear weapons on a nation who hasn't used them - particularly weapons of the type that this thread was initially about. I may be a cold hearted bastard though.

I even think that using a nuclear weapon can be a morally right thing to do IF someone uses a nuclear weapon on your nation first. That is actually from an example a Canadian Doctor of Philosophy came up with when explaining the mutability of the good in a paper he'd come up with. He toured it around the philosophical community from Princeton to Oxford and last I heard no one had figured out a nice rebuttal.

EDIT - the putz couldn't spell Oxford, ironic perhaps.

Laches -- Yes, I reread LNT post. I had thought that he/she meant in terms of treaties, not as a blanket policy without international agreement. In that instance, I am corrected.

Edit: note that I did not say using them second. MAD has been a successful deterrent for fifty years for good reason.

[ May 25, 2003, 06:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@Yago Have a-bombs to threaten, but never think about using it USA might not think of using it but do you think any "terrorist" wouldn't?

@Laches I even think that using a nuclear weapon can be a morally right thing to do IF someone uses a nuclear weapon on your nation first And then it would become morally right for them to use one back on you, right?

@Anyone or everyone
I personally think its horrible that people can even think about using nuclear anything. Even if they don't plan to blow up entire nations with them. Just the half life of nuclear waist should be enough to put any one using them, even for power. And these new weapons that are designed to massacre (spelling?) only a small amount of people maybe better than some other ones... But lets say USA uses it on someone who also posseses nuclear weapons, do you think that country would say "oh that doesn't really count as a nuclear weapon. So then it wouldn't be morally right if we go and nuke USA now."

Ofcourse they wouldn't think that. It would be more like, "Hey, thoses ****** in USA dropped a nuclear bomb on us. It doesn't matter what size it was its the thought that counts. They dropped a nuclear bomb on us, we have to pay them back tenfold!"
And then USA thinks now that they have been nuked its morally right to nuke someone in return, leading to the start of a nuclear war...

5 years later life on earth is exstinct.

Agreed, RotKU - The issue of whether or not to use nukes is larger than that of any one nation because of its impact on the entire of humanity. One only has to look at India and Pakistan to understand such implications. I think any sane nation would want to keep the nuclear genie in a tight bottle.

I think any sane nation would want to keep the nuclear genie in a tight bottle. If use nuclear things at all, chandos.

Yago -- You and I agree on most things, but not on this one. We would win in terms of tax dollars. One of the reasons why so many US companies are moving to China is the low wages. Why pay an American worker a living wage of $15.00 an hour when you can move to China and pay them .30 or .40 an hour? Plus not worry about minimum wages. Not only that, but they don't have to care about the environment, nor are unions a problem. That is why I can't bear to listen to ignorant people who rant about how big corps want to create jobs for US workers. 1. Yes, we agree, on the tax-dollar. Yes, and approx. 1'500 Dollars per head and year does not sound to shocking for most Americans. But that does not meand (there we agree Chandos, I guess), that those 1'500 Dollars per American head aren't put down the drain. China came into my mind, because it's the league the Americans play in (says someone, who comes a country with a population of 7 millions, the average American state is bigger then my whole country). And the same per head game yields 350 Dollar per Chinese head. It's that game, which makes giantic numbers of wasted money sound "reasonable".

2. We agree on another thing, I guess, it is not at all reasonable for the Chinese to spend 350$ per head for useless nuclear weapons. They could spend it for schools and infrastructure.

3. We agree that China is an free-market utopia (yes, yes, yes). No unions, they get a stick on they're head and go to jail for trying to make a union. No rights for workers at all. They get a stick on their head and go to jail, when they mention rights for workers.

4. We do not agree on the future of China. They're economical growth is giantic. In this case, I fully agree with the analysis of the neo-cons, especially condoleeza rice, the future number 1 world power is China. And that's why opening the pandora's box of "tactical-tiny-nukes" is worrying me. China is in the same positions, as the US was in the 19th century. So small, yet so full of potential (demographical and economical potential, not "ideology").

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China

The government has emphasized raising personal income and consumption and introducing new management systems to help increase productivity. The government also has focused on foreign trade as a major vehicle for economic growth, for which purpose it set up over 2000 Special economic zones (SEZ) where investment laws are relaxed in order to attract foreign capital. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 1999, with its 1.25 billion people and a GDP of just $3,800 per capita, China became the sixth largest economy in the world by exchange rate and second largest in the world after the US by purchasing power. The average annual income of a Chinese worker is $1,300. Chinese economy development is believed to be one of the fastest region in the world, about 7~8% per year by the statistic of Chinese government. And China is now a member of World Trade Organization.

But I don't think it's very smart, to build a new "Spanish Armada" to keep the growing ones in check. In my view, all the talk about stopping terrorist with nuclear weapons is just plain humbug. Stop Timothy McVeigh through nuking Oklahoma city ??????

Military is not financed through exchange rates, Military is financed through purchasing power.

Ms Rice's influence over the new administration's early foreign policy strategy has been considerable.

She led the tricky negotiations with Russia (her academic specialisation) over missile defence , and is thought to have spearheaded the unilateralist tone of the first months of the Bush presidency.

Her uncompromising positions on missile defence, Russia and the environment won respect but helped build the European caricature of the new president as toxic troglodyte.

And finally: No one can have tactictal nukes and can expect the rest of the world, hey, it's ok, we do not care about our one national defence, we will gladly abandon any plans to develop them ourselves.

Belligrent behaviour plus tactictal nukes = children aren't a good idea right now, except for stubborn optimists.

[ May 25, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: Yago ]

Well soon the US need not fear anyone else using nukes on them. In a matter of years the the deterence for the US to use nukes for fear of reprisal will be gone. 'Star Wars' will see to that. The most aggresive move ever made by a nation in times of peace. Making one country impregnable to the most devastating weapon mankind has ever seen is a distinct and open threat to the rest of the world. Especially considering where the US seems to be going at the moment, if the current trend of leadership stays with ultra-right hawks in power I shudder what a US with plenty of nukes and no fear of reprisals might do.

If the world insists in having nukes the only safety the world can get is through deterence and fear that if you launch one you will get one back in the head. Soon the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons need not fear that. So it is not strange that they are developing new ones, they know they can do whatever they wish and no one can go against them.

And then it would become morally right for them to use one back on you, right? It COULD be. Just like I said it COULD be for someone in the US to use them in retaliation. There is a difference between 'could'(actually I used 'can') and 'is.'

joacqin - There are many that doubt a missile defense shield will ever be very effective, and even if it is, it only protects against long range missiles. If you're sneaky enough, there's no defense against a nuclear weapon.

How can anyone situation EVER warrant nuclear weapons?

A nation nukes us so we nuke them back? What does that accomplish? Pre-emptive nuclear strikes? If my country ever did such a thing I would do whatever it took to remove the people from power who did such a thing. I doubt I am alone.

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are unfathomable. The heartache of millions and millions of people dead and worse yet, the heartache that those who loved them must endure afterwards is simply too much to wrap your heart and mind around. So we use a form of denial in which we use logic without a soul attached to rationalize these kind of things. That is sociopathic.

Think with your heart...logic is the most powerful gift ever given to humanity, but to use it independantly of the soul is most dangerous indeed. In fact, it's evil.

If I had my way, I would erect a monument where the world trade centers stood. Not a monument of courage, not a monument of firemen, not a monument to the people lost. I would erect a statue of a woman and man crying. Showing those that hate us that they can hurt us, and hurt us deeply would go a long way to moving us forward peacefully. Responding to their attack by showing we are stronger than them is just going to prolong this insanity.


Edit: @Laches Why should that person be impeached and tried for treason? Explain that please.

This following example is weird and a doctor in philosophy came up with it and afaik, no one has really been able to find its flaw yet -- that includes people like David Lewis, Derek Parfit, Sydney Shoemaker and lots of other giants in the world of philosophy. The example is weird but, imo, amusing, bear with it.

I believe the guys name was Duncan McIntosh (sp?) and he is a professor of philosophy in Canada. He was writing a paper on ethics and his premise was that the good was mutable - it changed over time; so, doing something one day would be bad and the next day it would be good.

How can it EVER be good to use nuclear weapons. Imagine the following (please no comments like - that's not likely, that's not realistic etc. It is a hypothetical, go with it):

You're Jesus Christ. (Don't get lost in the unimportant parts of this either. It is a hypothetical, go with it.) So, as Jesus Christ it is safe to say that one of your wants or desires is what we'll term the Utilitarian Want (UW) -- the desire to avoid massive useless destruction. That's fairly straightforward right? A good guy like Jesus Christ would have this UW and this UW is a good thing?

Now, Jesus Christ runs for president of the good ol U.S. of A. and he wins when the hanging chads in Florida fall off and a bunch of people vote for him actually thinking they were voting for Pat Buchanan. Yeah Jesus.

Meanwhile, over in the evil and despotic U.S.S.R. Darth Vader has just seized control. Now Darth is a mean old s.o.b. and he wants to take over the world. Problem is, the good ol U.S. of A. is too strong for him to take over the world. However, Darth has access to the force which lets him read the minds of others and he reads the mind of Jesus Christ the new president of the good ol U.S. of A.

Ah ha! Darth discovers Jesus Christ is a pretty good guy and has this UW which will prevent him from causing massive useless harm. Now Darth doesn't have this UW, so, the path to world domination is obvious: Nuke the Western half of the world, or at least North America and Jesus Christ won't retaliate because the missles will already be in the air when they're launched and the good ol U.S. of A. will already be doomed so why retaliate when that will only cause more massive useless harm (useless because it won't help the US survive) leaving Darth Vader free to take over the world (or what's left of it.) Darth begins to ready his plan.

Meanwhile, over in the good ol U.S. of A. Jesus Christ sees an apparation of Obi Wan Kenobi that tells him Darth's plan. Now Jesus Christ is faced with a conundrum. He has this U.W. The only way to avoid massive useless harm is to become the sort of person who no longer has this UW right? In order to avoid massive useless harm, Jesus Christ must become the sort of son of a ***** that will launch his weapons back at Darth Vader even though it will just cause massive useless harm.

So, in order to prevent massive useless harm Jesus Christ becomes a son of a *****. Jesus Christ becoming a son of a ***** who is willing to destroy the world then is a good thing. Yeah Jesus. Would hardly be fair then to say that Jesus retaliating would be evil on the part of Jesus would it? (might be evil for lots of other people, but not Jesus.)

That's how a situation can warrant the use of nuclear force. Yeah Jesus. ( I just like writing that: Yeah Jesus.)

Also, I take it that suggestions like: "think with your heart" translate to: "you heartless s.o.b.?"

As far as why I think a president that actually took steps to completely disarm the US nuclear arsenal should be impeached? The above example should let you see why I think. No real worry about that though, no one that crazy could get elected.

hmm...well anyway...

so your saying that we should not disband our nuclear arsenal because Jesus Christ would not be able to send nukes against Darth Vader?

*crosses philosophy off his future class list*

think i'll stick to the sciences...

Way to miss the point.

*crosses philosophy off his future class list* Why ? Haven't had philosophy, but it may give insight, which enables better debating people, who like Laches are obviously trained in debating (and philosophy ?).

Hey, isn't that the prisoners dilemma ?

In BG2 in the Irenicus level, just after the beginning, there's a guy presenting you with the prisoners dilemma. That's why I know of it.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html

Cooperation is usually analysed in game theory by means of a non-zero-sum game called the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (Axelrod, 1984). The two players in the game can choose between two moves, either "cooperate" or "defect". The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the "cheated" cooperator whose cooperation is not returned. The whole game situation and its different outcomes can be summarized by table 1, where hypothetical "points" are given as an example of how the differences in result might be quantified. The game got its name from the following hypothetical situation: imagine two criminals arrested under the suspicion of having committed a crime together. However, the police does not have sufficient proof in order to have them convicted. The two prisoners are isolated from each other, and the police visit each of them and offer a deal: the one who offers evidence against the other one will be freed. If none of them accepts the offer, they are in fact cooperating against the police, and both of them will get only a small punishment because of lack of proof. They both gain. However, if one of them betrays the other one, by confessing to the police, the defector will gain more, since he is freed; the one who remained silent, on the other hand, will receive the full punishment, since he did not help the police, and there is sufficient proof. If both betray, both will be punished, but less severely than if they had refused to talk. The dilemma resides in the fact that each prisoner has a choice between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other one will do.

Jesus christ is in a dilemma. He has only two choises, play the game or loose. The answer is, don't get into a dilemma and don't become prisoner. By the way, Darth Vader cheats, because he can read the mind of Jesus.

But what, if Darth Vader becomes the President of the USA ? :eek: :(

My personal favourite text about the nuclear dilemma is the following:

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

I'm not that bright sometimes so please spell it out for me.

Edit: ----> Latches...the point that is

[ May 26, 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

Nuke the Western half of the world, or at least North America and Jesus Christ won't retaliate because the missles will already be in the air when they're launched and the good ol U.S. of A. will already be doomed so why retaliate when that will only cause more massive useless harm (useless because it won't help the US survive) leaving Darth Vader free to take over the world (or what's left of it.) Darth begins to ready his plan.
Ahm, isn't that a bad plan of Darth Vader, because nuking the western world means at the same time causing enough radioactive hevoc to finish the rest of the world ?

So...according to the prisoner arguement...if we both co-operate and all remove our nukes...we both win. Correct?

BAH...I don't know...how is this useful?


I hope this doesn't anger anyone...but philosophy seems like a way for someone to increase their social standing without actually accomplishing anything. Nature has infinite riddles that could use solving...why create ones that lie entirely within the domain of the human head?

I hope this doesn't anger anyone...but philosophy seems like a way for someone to increase their social standing without actually accomplishing anything. Nature has infinite riddles that could use solving...why create ones that lie entirely within the domain of the human head? Lol, if there was no philosophy, there would be no natural science. Because philosophy and natural science are born in the same place. Secondly, "applied" philosophy is law, economics, the other social sciences. The prisoner's dilemma is used in economics and political science, as far as I know. You can say the same about engineering and math. Why all the fuss ? It's only an equation on a paper.

Why even have science at all ? Taking it to the absurd: If there was no philosphy, there would be anarchy. Greek philosphy discovered and described anarchy, monarchy, aristorcracy and democracy. Withouth philosophy, development in science would not have been possible. You would not have a computer and would not live in America and would not live in a democracy.

I fail to see how conjuring imaginary scenerios that have no possibility nor basis in reality has anything to do with the advancement of mankind.

Imagination is one thing. The science of philosophy is quite another.

Why do I think philosophy is useless? Well...when I'm trying to have a rational discussion about nuclear weapons and the arguement becomes what if Jesus Christ was President and Darth Vader was the leader of "the others"...then we have entered the realm of uselessness.

Now obviously philosophy has it's place. The greeks would never have found their way out of caves without it. But not here.

Edit: and saying there would be no natural science without philosophy because they were born in the same place is a logic fault...

Now obviously philosophy has it's place. The greeks would never have found their way out of caves without it. But not here.Is that a hidden link to platon ?

Edit: and saying there would be no natural science without philosophy because they were born in the same place is a logic fault... Logic fault. Just another achievement of greek philosophy

No, it wasn't a logic fault, bad language and communication skills. -> Greeks used to be all in one -> Philosophers started biology, geography, geometry, mathematics and all that.

My ability to see the difference between someone creating imaginary scenerios and someone dutifully taking notes and observations of nature was not given to me by the greeks.

Science and philosophy are not related unless you say the scientific method is a philosophy of sorts. Which i'm not sure about.

Laches, what would stop Darth Vader from launching his missiles as soon as he sees Jesus preemptive strike? Then both the US and the USSR are burning deserts of radioctivity. I think that is a pretty obvious flaw to your example. Especially since you already earlier in your example stated that it was possible for Jesus to launch missiles after Darth had but he would choose not to. Thus the best thing Jesus can do against a s.o.a.b like Darth is nothing. True, his realm would be burning but the poor buggers that are under Darth's power would live. In your example the US is screwed anyway, thus there is never any need to waste the other half of the world too, except for good ole fashioned revenge. I would hope that Jesus was above that.

For those just clicking in...

How do you feel about the development of new nuclear weapons? What about disarming and destroying all nuclear weapons?

Unfortunately I doubt that all nuclear weapons will be completely destroyed - at least while mankind continues to be mankind.

The only thing that civilization can do now is keep the existing weapons in the hands of democracies and other responsible governments. For this reason, the world should be ready to launch attacks against third-world states and organizations such as al-Qaeda that gain nuclear weapons.

Otherwise, massive numbers of people will die.

[ May 26, 2003, 01:06: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

joacquin, Jesus wasn't going to launch a preemptive strike. He just needs to get to the point where he would launch a retaliatory strike even though his half of the world would be destroyed anyways. Darth can read minds remember? He would know when Jesus changed his thinking in such a manner. Darth doesn't want to die. So, he won't launch and there is nothing for Jesus to retaliate to. The point is that Jesus can't be "above" good ol fashioned revenge if he wants to prevent destruction in the first place. To prevent destruction you better be willing to destroy -- the old MAD doctrine. The point is that it is rational and even good as opposed to the old sort of common thought that you'd have to be some crazy nut.

The point is this LNT: you seemed to come up with an absolutist stand that it can't ever be ok to use nukes. I used what I thought was a silly but entertaining and absolute example of when it would be ok to become the type of guy who would and indeed you should become that sort of person. If you can't say in the example that it wouldn't be ok to be that type of person, then your absolutist stand can't be correct. Then you start to look for the line where it may or may not be ok which should lie between the two extremes.

The other point is to talk a bit about MAD. You can't put Pandora back in the box. The method of creating nukes is common knowledge. There are a lot of "Darth Vaders" in the world. One thing they typically have in common is they don't want to die. Thus, for the US or any nation to just get rid of its nuclear arsenal is an invitation to the "Darth Vaders" of the world to create and use weapons like nukes on you since you will be unable to respond in kind; take out your nation and then go about business. Given that the world has lots and lots of Darths, to voluntarily give up your only deterrence to those guys would border on treason (aiding of the enemy) and should get you run out of office asap.

It would be nice if we could all get along, but I'm not holding my breath.

@Laches

If you frame the arguement according to parameters that are non-possibilities and support your cause...then yes you are correct.

How about this one...if God came down to earth and said "You will nuke all nations or I will destroy the Earth through divine might!" Well then yes, it would be the prudent choice to fire away. But that will never, ever, ever happen, and neither will your scenerio.

Keep it real.

If you frame the arguement according to parameters that are non-possibilities and support your cause...then yes you are correct.
I think you're hung up on the silly aspects of the example which were really just for fun. I tried to warn against it. The parameters aren't non-possible, that's how MAD has worked for decades. No matter how tense things got the US and the Soviets didn't use their weapons because they had to think the other side was mean enough to be willing to kill everyone.

I think they didn't use their weapons because both sides are populated by human beings. In reality, nobody wants to use nuclear weapons. So why are they still around tempting the less wise to push the button?

Edit: And about creating nukes being common knowledge. You are correct. If I take a quantity of Uranium 235 and surround it with explosives powerful enough to create energy levels so great that the bonds holding the nuclei together let go, fission occurs. That is common knowledge.

But guess what? Common Uranium will not work. The process requires Uranium 235. Very difficult to make. Requires years and years of work. A warlord in Afghanistan could not suddenly open up a physics book and decide to nuke New York.

But you know what he could do? Buy an already made bomb that is sitting around because we are too stupid to destroy the horrible things.

Ok, now I get your example, I did find it a bit strange that an example stolen would have a such obvious flaw, which it of course did not have. Yes you are right, that is what MAD was and in a way still is based on. If I may be so stubborn and point out that it is exactly why the Strategic Missile Defence is incredible dangerous to the world. What if Darth Vader gets into power in the US?

The only thing that civilization can do now is keep the existing weapons in the hands of democracies and other responsible governments. For this reason, the world should be ready to launch attacks against third-world states and organizations such as al-Qaeda that gain nuclear weapons.

Hm, I've got a problem with that statement. Who decides what a "democracy" or a "responsible Goverment" is. The Darth Vader example shows some dangerous ethnocentricity. Don't break your back with the burden of the white man. What if someone came and said, the American goverment is no responsible goverment ?

And anyway, I always thought EVERY nation has the right to defend itself versus other nations, that attack them. So, third-world countries would need nuclear weapons to defend themselves versus first-world countries. But, oops, pre-emptive doctrine. It is strictly forbidden to have nuclear weapons, if a country has not a "responsible" goverment. Did you hear that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, Brazil and especially you, Iran. And every other nation who's economical and scientific developement has reached a stadium, which allows them to develop nuclear weapons.

Isn't that a little bit hypocrit ? You are not allowed to have nuclear weapons. We have them only for self-defence and we would never use it. Ooops, we have changed our minds. We develop now tactical-nukes, which will be used in pre-emptive strikes. Hm, crystal ball tells me, Indonesia, that you're will be able to develop nuclear weapons and pose a strategical threat to the US in about 30-years or so. Let's do some preemptive strike.

Democracies by their nature exist to better their people. Since the government derives its power directly from the people and, as a result, consists of those is represents, all decisions are rational and logical.

On the other side of the spectrum are tyrannies and monarchies. These governments are controls by individuals whose actions and decisions are made to better themselves rather the people. Sometimes, considerations are made for the common man to prevent problems, but this is all done out of basic fears.

If you look at world history, a democracy has never gone to war with another democracy. When the situation gets heated, both governments find common ground because they have common goals.

As an American, I was not at all worried when India became a nuclear power. They are a democracy, and we have no fear that they would create a nuclear war unless attacked in kind. On the other hand, Americans are quite worried than Iran may become a nuclear power - since they may use it. In need not mention Iraq.

For a while, Americans were worried about Pakistan - since it is hardly a Democracy - at least when they did "join the club". However, from their fight on terrorism, the government demonstrated that they have a moral and honor grounding and, therefore, "responsible".

Russia is a powerful nuclear nation, but a new Democracy. Americans do fear a nuclear was with Russia - even though America and Russia are not the best of friends.

If Palenstein ever got the bomb, it would be used. From an American standpoint, this is an absolute, not a maybe.

The problem with a democracy is that it is unstable. Very much so. All the democracies that are also nuclear powers are in my eyes neither very good democracies nor very stable ones. I can see madmen grasping power by democratic means in all of them. Yes even the USA. Hitler after all came to power through democratic means, you might say that Germany of that time was not a very mature and good democracy and well, I can say the same about India, Pakistan, Russia and the US. France whom I still consider a slightly more stable democracy than those others are still not safe from lunatics. Just look at how close Le Pen was to gain the presidency there.

I would not put all that much stock in the idea that just because a leader and government is elected they have the well being of their people first and foremost either. The leadership, especially in the big nations comes from small elites with little or no ties to the common populace. Thus they have no real perception of what the populace wants and no sense of responsibility to anyone else than their peers. This is even more pronounced in countries where large chunks of the population neither care, know, or understand about politics. Thus they do not vote. Low turnout is the death of a democracy.

Addition: Furthermore so is your example Laches not an example when it is right to use nuclear weapons, it is an example when it is right to be prepared to use nuclear weapons or atleast give the perception of being prepared to do so. A difference there.

[ May 26, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: joacqin ]

Democracies by their nature exist to better their people. Since the government derives its power directly from the people and, as a result, consists of those is represents, all decisions are rational and logical.
Ahm, no. That would mean that the people decide rational and logical. That was not the case in Italy in the 1920s. A democracy which voted for a faschist party, which abolished democracy with the approval of the people.

Hitler after all came to power through democratic means, you might say that Germany of that time was not a very mature and good democracy I tend to disagree with that. Which makes the whole thing much more frightening. Germany was a very stable, very democratic state. The best comparision to the German Empire is the British Empire. The Germans even were more demorcratic then the British. This changed with WW1, the exile of the German emperor (sp ?) and the Weimarer republic. But the Weimarer Republic was doomed, the Versailler treaty, the backstab legend, the hunger for war and revenge of the German lords and military, the never ending fights betweeen the main democratic parties, SPD and CDU (if it was in this time already called this way, I guess I don't remember correctly), the big world-economic-crisis from 1929 led to a goverment crisis and to the inforcing of state-of-emergency laws. This laws gave strong powers to the goverment and Reichspresident Hindenburg, at that time around 90 and with clear signs of seniltiy, the right to appoint state-of-emergency goverments. Then one after one after one goverment broke down and alway new Reichskanzlers were appointed. Until Hitlers turn came. Shortly after he became Reichskanzler, the German parliment building was burnt down. Who burned it down, is until now unclear. But, like Cicero said, who profited from it ? Hitler took the chance, accused his political enemys as enemies of the state and whoops, the half of the parlimentarians "disappeared" into "camps". So, the Nazis never won one single election in Germany, never, even with the biggest forging of election results. But it didn't matter, because the seized power.

This is the most frightening part about the German example, I think. A stable, fully developed, military powerfull country became a giantic lunatic. And most of the Germans were convinced, they were the "good" guys, and that they were fighing for a "just" cause. A lot of them really believed that. Misled Paladins.

If you look at world history, a democracy has never gone to war with another democracy. When the situation gets heated, both governments find common ground because they have common goals.
I don't agree with that either. Even after WW2, most European countries stayed bellegrient (sp ?). The Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Algeria and Vietnam, the British allied together with the French to assault Egypt....

They were belligrent, because "colonization" was still legitim policy in the name of national interest. Of course, all this changed, after realizing that it didn't work any longer. Moral insight came a little bit afterwards.

And if America really was a democracy from the day independence on, what was that with the civil-war. Democracies would never fight eachother ?

Still, are you not sending a message to former colonies, that their own raise to power is only allowed, if the finally give in to "western-civilization". I know, that's a little "blunt" formulation, but still, I guess the point is valid.

Now India worries me more than China, to be honest. The goverment of China seems to me very reasonable. Yes, they are are brutal dictatorship versus the inside. But very calm versus the outside. And they ARE reforming themselves. At least, they try. India and Pakistan are somehow in an everlasting bellegrient status versus eachother.