Slashdot Mirror
How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament
Lasrick writes: John Mecklin details exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: "[T]his is precisely why the U.S. Congress rejected the Air Force’s requests for low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons in the 1990s: Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them." The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: "The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring's NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world."
Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
I really couldn't disagree more. If Russia or China nuked anybody, there would be a lot of world wide anger, but any actual acts against them? Ha ha ha ha ha. Even the USA's BFF the UK really could not possibly be more of China's bitch on a constant basis.
Here's how I see the nuclear powers.
Bad actors: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Good actors: USA, France, UK, Israel.
I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first. Putin may be just trying to make everybody else think he's unbalanced or he may actually be crazy enough to possibly use a nuke first. I'm not happy with either possibility. India probably wouldn't use a nuke first, but Pakistan may be crazy or irrational enough to do so. North Korea is definitely irrational enough to do so. I doubt that China's civilian government would use a nuke as a first choice, but I fear that the Communist Party may not have as great a control over the PLA as they'd like to think and if the PLA has the ability to launch strikes without the CCP giving the order, there just might be generals crazy enough to do it because they don't believe anybody has the guts to make them pay for it. No amount of public pressure can make the 'bad actors" I listed back off and if anybody honestly thinks the USA, France and the UK are the greatest threats to the world, then you're delusional to a point that nobody can bring you back from.
Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.
i would suspect that a regional conflict a'la India/Pakistan would amplify the ostracism/elimination by the rest of the world, since the stakes would be perceived as being smaller overall (as in 'oh, it's just a couple of small countries doing this, and they only have a small handful of nukes, so...')
Now the act of North Korea tossing a nuke in anger would present some problems, but only insofar as China's tolerance for such an act. Then again, w/o China's protection, North Korea could be turned into a self-lighting parking lot with no one on the planet giving any real objections to it, though I'm not really sure that China would really tolerate the Norks pulling such a stunt.
Israel I think is smart enough to know that if they used anything nuclear in an aggressive manner, what few friends they do have would cut them off at the economic knees, leaving them at the mercy of, well, all of their neighbors. I strongly suspect that the presence of Israeli nuclear weapons is purely political and/or last-ditch, and for no other discernable reason.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And Malaysia for Rubber, as well. They did so in part because the USA had organized a trade embargo on oil, rubber, and related POL products, in response to the Japanese invasion of China (and the subsequent occupation of the French colonies in Indochina).
The Philippines was the forwardmost US military base in the Pacific at the time, and sat directly astride the ocean route from Malaysia/Indonesia to Japan. But moreover it was fully expected by Japan that the US would declare war in response to any attack on British or Dutch possessions in East Asia, so Japan struck first, bombing the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, and following up with invasions of key strategic and economic locations.
India developed their nukes because of China not Pakistan. China is the only country with more potential soldiers than India and after several wars in the 60s where Chinese swamped the Indians with numbers they looked for an equalizer. Pakistan then followed India for the same reason to equalize their lesser forces with India's. India isn't going to disarm unless China does.
Shawn Moore http://www.teuse.net
Imagine that a nation had a small "clean" nuke that could be delivered with pinpoint precision. At that point it's basically just a more efficient form of high explosive. Why *wouldn't* they use it? (As opposed to tens or hundreds of conventional bombs.)
The issue with nukes is that they're WMDs. If they got to the point where they were no longer WMDs but rather just a very efficient way of blowing up a relatively small area (a single remote military installation, for example) then people are going to use them.
Iraq used chemical weapons to pretty good effect to stave off Iranian human wave attacks during the Iran Iraq war. If they hadnâ(TM)t it would have somewhat increased the likelihood that Iran would have won the war. With the help of chemical weapons Iraq fought a much larger country to a stalemate.
The Reagan administration and numerous western companies were fine with Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran during that era. They didnt want Iran to win that war.
@de_machina