Attempting to stop nuclear proliferation is a futile effort

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As technology progresses, things that were once difficult become easy. At one time the only way to harvest a crop was by hand. Literally. Then the sickle was invented. This led to the scythe, and onward untill we reach modern agricultural machinery. Machinery which makes a years harvest in ancient times possible in hours today, and with a fraction as much manpower.

At one time, aluminum cost $20 an ounce (in todays dollars). Now it's so cheap that everyones trash can probably has some in it.

In 60 years we went from believing flight to be impossible to having the SR-71.

That said, with technological change coming faster now than at any other time, how can we pretend to be able to stop nuclear weapons from becoming easier and easier to build? Or if not nuclear weapons, some other weapons with a similar destructive force? Are we not just spinning our wheels, prolonging the inevitable?

And if that is true - that eventually the technology to produce such weapons will be commonplace enough for them to be easily procurable - does that not suggest that we have already started down the road towards armageddon?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 655 • Replies: 12

No top replies

change was faster during the 60's - early 90's i'd say. nuclear weapons are different because they are not legal for public production and there is no reason to pursue the development of them, they already work more than well enough, and they arent practical for actual use because of global retailiation...they are already easy to make, this was something to worry about decades ago the crisis is over now.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

... nuclear weapons are different because they are not legal for public production and there is no reason to pursue the development of them, they already work more than well enough, and they arent practical for actual use because of global retailiation...they are already easy to make, this was something to worry about decades ago the crisis is over now.

It doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from seeking them, e.g. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc. There will be other countries pursuing them in the future.

You're wrong about retaliation. All you have to do is smuggle the pieces for one (or several) into the target country and then detonate it there. How is anyone to know who was responsible? Any evidence will be destroyed in the fireball. This is especially true for the folks who are crazy and irresponsible enough to give it a try. A terrorist organization might not even have a return address to direct retaliation to. Small dictatorships and terrorist organizations would probably see suitcase nukes (and bioweapons) as the preferred method of overcoming the conventional superiority of the US and its allies.

If every country that seeks nukes is allowed to eventually acquire them, then at some point in time, there will be so many in play that one will be used.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

change was faster during the 60's - early 90's i'd say. nuclear weapons are different because they are not legal for public production and there is no reason to pursue the development of them, they already work more than well enough, and they arent practical for actual use because of global retailiation...they are already easy to make, this was something to worry about decades ago the crisis is over now.

That's a pretty naive view. Considering the number of countries currently trying to procure nuclear weapons, id never have thought someone would reply with "nuclear proliferation was something to worry about decades ago."

Not to mention that you consider anything on earth to "work more than well enough." Lot's of people said that about cars in the '20s, and aircraft in the '60s. Hell, people have been saying warfare itself couldn't get any bloodier for as long as people have been inventing new weapons.

0 Replies

Let me preface this with the blatant admission that I never go out of my way to concern myself with issues of foreign policy:

Sure there are governments looking to acquire nuclear technology but they don't want them to use them, they just want to have the threat as a means of cheap protection, or just in case.

Nuclear technology has been around for a long time and there is no reason why, after all this time, things will suddenly change...no government wants a nuclear war.

And yes, they do work well enough, and any government who spent time researching how to make them work better would be idiotic. They are so powerful at this point that they are taken with the utmost of seriousness. A 500kT hydrogen bomb commands respect, just as much respect as a 1000kT bomb. It would also piss off the rest of the world. And it would also be a waste of money with no direct payoffs.

It is hypocritical of us to get mad at other countries for wanting to acquire nuclear weapons when we never even got rid of ours.

Granted having more nuclear weapons in the world increases the chance of a disaster but its not like there is an arms race, they are still on the decline I think even though a few might be produced...and it is not inevitable that they be used, they might be used for propulsion of spacecraft or mars terraforming or there could be economic collapse first.

0 Replies

This is getting off on a bit of a tangent, but since no one else seems interested in this thread... :p

stuh505 wrote:

Let me preface this with the blatant admission that I never go out of my way to concern myself with issues of foreign policy:

Sure there are governments looking to acquire nuclear technology but they don't want them to use them, they just want to have the threat as a means of cheap protection, or just in case.

Nuclear technology has been around for a long time and there is no reason why, after all this time, things will suddenly change...no government wants a nuclear war.

Even if these governments only want nukes as a means of "cheap protection," think of the effect that would have on our foreign policy. We'd no longer have the threat of military force to hold over other countries who didnt do what we wanted. Now, lets not let this fall into a discussion over whether or not thats a good thing for us to be doing in the first place. Merely think of how that would effect our power in the world (for good or worse). We'd be much less effective than we are now in getting what we want, since we'd be left to economic and political devices. The thought of taking military action or even invading a country that had nukes would never fly.

That said, nukes arent only being aquired by governments. There are plenty of individuals who would love to get their hands on one. With these people, there's no repercussion. They detonate it wherever they want and they know the US doesnt have a clear enemy with which they can retaliate against.

stuh505 wrote:

And yes, they do work well enough, and any government who spent time researching how to make them work better would be idiotic. They are so powerful at this point that they are taken with the utmost of seriousness. A 500kT hydrogen bomb commands respect, just as much respect as a 1000kT bomb. It would also piss off the rest of the world. And it would also be a waste of money with no direct payoffs.

It is hypocritical of us to get mad at other countries for wanting to acquire nuclear weapons when we never even got rid of ours.

Granted having more nuclear weapons in the world increases the chance of a disaster but its not like there is an arms race, they are still on the decline I think even though a few might be produced...and it is not inevitable that they be used, they might be used for propulsion of spacecraft or mars terraforming or there could be economic collapse first.

You realize that every nuclear-capable country is still developing the nuke, right?

And how is it hypocritical of us to get mad at other countries for wanting to aquire the bomb? I would agree with you if one of these countries were France, or England, or any other democratic country. But when you're talking about an autocratic state where power is controlled by only a few people who arent beholden to the people they rule, then how can you think they have just as much right to such a devastating weapon as the US? Or any democracy?

0 Replies

Quote:

I would agree with you if one of these countries were France, or England, or any other democratic country.

Russia, France, UK, China they all have them...

Quote:

But when you're talking about an autocratic state where power is controlled by only a few people who arent beholden to the people they rule, then how can you think they have just as much right to such a devastating weapon as the US? Or any democracy?

Uh...are you joking? Have you noticed that the power of the US is controlled by only a few people who are not beholden to the people they rule? And also that we are the only ones crazy enough to attack the rest of the world?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Let me preface this with the blatant admission that I never go out of my way to concern myself with issues of foreign policy:

Sure there are governments looking to acquire nuclear technology but they don't want them to use them, they just want to have the threat as a means of cheap protection, or just in case.

Nuclear technology has been around for a long time and there is no reason why, after all this time, things will suddenly change...no government wants a nuclear war.

And yes, they do work well enough, and any government who spent time researching how to make them work better would be idiotic. They are so powerful at this point that they are taken with the utmost of seriousness. A 500kT hydrogen bomb commands respect, just as much respect as a 1000kT bomb. It would also piss off the rest of the world. And it would also be a waste of money with no direct payoffs.

It is hypocritical of us to get mad at other countries for wanting to acquire nuclear weapons when we never even got rid of ours.

Granted having more nuclear weapons in the world increases the chance of a disaster but its not like there is an arms race, they are still on the decline I think even though a few might be produced...and it is not inevitable that they be used, they might be used for propulsion of spacecraft or mars terraforming or there could be economic collapse first.

In the beginning, only very large, stable countries possessed nukes. Then, as time passed, intermediate size countries, still pretty stable, still with reasonably risk averse policies acquired them. As technology progreses, the ante to join the game goes down, and smaller, less wealthy, less sophisticated entities can join the club. It is blatantly obvious that the pattern of history is for more and more countries to acquire these weapons. In the future, more entities will possess them, not fewer, and among them will be small, unstable dictatorships, and maybe even terrorist organizations. If these weapons are allowed to proliferate unchecked, to smaller and smaller entities, bad, dangerous people will acquire them, people who pose a serious risk of using them. If anyone who wants them for any reason is allowed to obtain them unfettered, they will sooner or later be used.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
I would agree with you if one of these countries were France, or England, or any other democratic country.

Russia, France, UK, China they all have them...

Quote:
But when you're talking about an autocratic state where power is controlled by only a few people who arent beholden to the people they rule, then how can you think they have just as much right to such a devastating weapon as the US? Or any democracy?

Uh...are you joking? Have you noticed that the power of the US is controlled by only a few people who are not beholden to the people they rule? And also that we are the only ones crazy enough to attack the rest of the world?

So therefore it's safe for a Pol Pot or Idi Amin to obtain them. Nice logic.

0 Replies

Brandon,

Youv'e had good things to say on this topic and I don't disagree with you. I don't think it's safe for other smaller countries to have them, although I donm't think anythings going to happen too soon, my point was that it's not safe for US to have them either.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Brandon,

Youv'e had good things to say on this topic and I don't disagree with you. I don't think it's safe for other smaller countries to have them, although I donm't think anythings going to happen too soon, my point was that it's not safe for US to have them either.

You're correct, but there are countries whose possession of nukes is or would be much, much less safe than the US.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
I would agree with you if one of these countries were France, or England, or any other democratic country.

Russia, France, UK, China they all have them...

No... you miss my point. France and England are democratic countries, they can be trusted with such weapons much further than an authoritarian state.

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
But when you're talking about an autocratic state where power is controlled by only a few people who arent beholden to the people they rule, then how can you think they have just as much right to such a devastating weapon as the US? Or any democracy?

Uh...are you joking? Have you noticed that the power of the US is controlled by only a few people who are not beholden to the people they rule? And also that we are the only ones crazy enough to attack the rest of the world?

Wow. Really, wow.

If you don't mind, id appreciate it if you'd stay out of this thread. You're going off on a tangent thats really beyond the scope of what i want to discuss here.

0 Replies

Quote:

Wow. Really, wow.

If you don't mind, id appreciate it if you'd stay out of this thread. You're going off on a tangent thats really beyond the scope of what i want to discuss here.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk in public -- if you don't mind, please.

0 Replies

Attempting to stop nuclear proliferation is a futile effort

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know