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."

Comments

Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Xenkar]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

... or slaughtering their own citizens.

I think you mean "holding back their oil". Because slaughtering their citizens never really registered on any country's radar, except as an excuse to accomplish something else.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[aliquis]

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Perhaps the world belong to everyone.

And no, the output of peoples labor does not.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gstoddart]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid.

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?

And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.

Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?

Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

"Japan wanted the oil in the Philippines"

uh, wut? Japan wanted the Philippines to protect their southern flank and for agricultural purposes....they wanted Indonesia for oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

But you are correct.....Afgahnistan does not have oil, and the U.S. gets very little of its overall oil from Iraq.

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_b...
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

Yeah, they sure did utterly fail to act and ignore what was happening in Africa because of the lack of oil. How did that work out for them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

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.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[fsagx]

That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

That seems logical, but Assad did just that:

Syria will give up control of chemical weapons

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[deKernel]

Not sure actual numbers confirm your theory.

http://www.energytrendsinsider...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[billstewart]

The Iraqis got their chemical weapons from the US for use against Iran. The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products (though they do occasionally retire old unstable chemical weapons, as they've done recently.)

And both the US and Russians still have their hoards of smallpox, pretending they need to keep them to develop vaccines in case the other side uses theirs to attack, even though cowpox ("vaccinia") is good enough for a vaccine and not good enough for a weapon.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals.

If you exclude Nicaragua, Colombia, Fiji, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Nicaragua, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, and Nicaragua from your list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

Since it's paywalled, I guess we'll never know.

The program mentioned in the article (PEPFAR) did devote money to programs that promoted abstinence, which is definitely somewhat misguided, but still spent two-thirds of its funding on programs which supported the use of condoms. Wikipedia makes no mention of an "insistence" or requirement that the aid money be devoted to abstinence-only methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Perhaps the most salient point was made in another thread. The Ukraine, as one of the only nations to ever willingly give up a nuclear arsenal, is in the process of being invaded. I'm not sure if you care about the distinction that in this case it is Russia doing the invading and not the evil America or her western allies.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.

Not all "WMDs" are alike though. Nuclear weapons are weapons of state preservation in a way that Chemical weapons have never been. Chemical Weapons are nasty stuff, to be sure - but in terms of history, they've been more of a liability than an advantage. I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons, and at least one was invaded in part because they were alleged to have chemical weapons.

If anything, the lesson will be that Chemical Weapons are a bigger liability than benefit, and that Nuclear Weapons development is a gamble - but if it pays off, you're set. Once you have the bomb, you're not going to get attacked, though getting there is a dangerous proposition.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

The USA is in the process of destroying old chemical weapons stockpiles, as are the Russians. Getting rid of the stuff isn't easy, or cheap. According to semi-unreliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention), the USA has gotten rid of approximately 90% of its stockpiles, while the Russians have gotten rid of 78%.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[ralphsiegler]

What country flew an airplane into any U.S. building? Terrorist group of Saudis, who were former apid CIA agents in Soviet-Afghanistan war, did that. Maybe our CIA should cut that kind of shit out, eh? Then you bring up WMD, Saddam had no working WMD nor WMD program when US invaded. What he did have were long-expired weapons with UN tags on them, that were built with dual-use tech and billions of dollars given to him by ...wait for it..the United States of America. Because at the time he was our bestest pal, even made an honorary citizen of Detroit by the mayor for his donations to church, etc.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

More specifically it was American/British/Dutch, as China was already at war with Japan at the time, having been invaded in 1937. America was the organizing power though. Britain and the Dutch were embroiled in a war with Nazi Germany, and would have been hesitant to take such action without American guarantees/involvement. The idea, generally, was to force Japan to back down and end the war with China, and it followed on the heels of earlier action such as freezing Japanese assets in the US, and embargoing the sale of things like scrap metal to Japan.

It wasn't so much about their economy though, as the fact that Japan did not produce enough fuel and other POL products to run its military. Had they done nothing, they would have run out of fuel for their planes and ships, rubber for tires, etc. Not only would they be unable to continue their invasion of China, they would also be unable to fight back against the USA/Britain/etc should it come to war at a later point.

Essentially the Oil Embargo brought matters to a head, and forced Japan to choose between caving to the demands, or going to war, regardless of how bad the odds might be. Human nature, unfortunately, is to choose the latter - i.e. "not without a fight."

You're right though - it is an interesting question, of how far a nation can go in using economic means to influence or deter other nations, without resorting to warfare, or pushing another nation to outright warfare. The USA/etc _did_ push Japan into a corner in 1941, but that doesn't mean they weren't right to do so in the context. We should definitely have expected the eventual result, though.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.

His decision and timing were brilliant since it prevented Obama from launching airstrikes and cruise missiles which he was on the verge of doing. Assad can always rebuild his WMD program later after he crushes the rebels.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

It was a dumb move that showed they didn't understand our internal politics, but if they were going to do it, it was pretty shortsighted not to land troops and take Hawaii. That would have allowed them to consolidate their Pearl Harbor air strike results and forced us over 2500 miles back to the West Coast. Given our industrial power it probably wouldn't have mattered in the long run, but it would have bought them at least an extra year.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[demachina]

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.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

We involved ourselves in the conflict between China and Japan. Two countries that had been at war many times over history. All in all I feel it was the best move for US interests but I can see Japan's view. They were at war and we were trying to hold them back. Countries do what is in their interests. There is no real right or wrong there is only survival. If we can cooperate and all survive that is great. If not, we have to survive. Japan miscalculated and the Japanese government and a lot of it's people did not survive. The US did. Personally as a citizen of the US I'm okay with that. I know if things had turned out the other way the world would be far different. Most likely even worse than the fucked up mess it is today.

Wait... what?

[Penguinisto]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.

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.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.

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.

You say these things as if they were fact. They are not, they are suppositions.
The same way a defensive system can alter strategic balance, so can improved nuclear tipped missiles with highly accurate targetting systems. MAD is irrelevant in regional conflicts. Think about how close a nuclear exchange is possible between India and Pakistan. Or Israel targetting single military installations in Iran with bunker buster that are nuclear not conventional. Americans, Russians, French, British and the Cinese think of nuclear weapons as political weapons. Not military weapons. But if you manage to make a very precise low yield nuclear missile that incinerates let's say less than 1 km^2 it becomes by this simple performance an offensive weapon.Just like neutron bombs were all the rage in the seventies.

Re:Wait... what?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:Wait... what?

[gstoddart]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?

Usually the ridiculous belief you could do a small scale strike to disable your opponent, or that there is a scenario in which nuclear war is "winnable".

Those of us who remember when M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) as the awesome way we kept nuclear bombs in check have long since stopped expecting rational thought to play into the calculus of nukes.

The assumption that nobody would ever be idiotic enough to use them has always struck me as entirely unfounded.

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'm not disagreeing with you. I do disagree that world leaders can be counted upon to act rationally, or make decisions supported by logic.

Or that they wouldn't simply do this crap out of ego or spite.

Look around at some of the piss-pot despots and ask yourself ... would you trust this person to not be an idiot? Now, look at the leaders of some Western countries and ask yourself ... my god, do we let this idiot control nukes?

Re:Wait... what?

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re:Wait... what?

[chipschap]

This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.

I'm sorry America can't be as moral and upright as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and all the other paragons of virtue that you love so much.

Re:Wait... what?

[ColdWetDog]

Consider that, since the end of WW2, the nature of nuclear weapons (types, sizes), their numbers, their delivery systems have and the political landscape have changed so much that what we did 70 years ago really has little to do with the present tense. Give up on this rather ancient trope and look around you. If you think there are parallels between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and today's complex interplay of countries, economies and military forces, you are the delusional one.

Re:Wait... what?

[gewalker]

No military reason? US casualty estimates for a conventional invasion were typically around 500,000 US casualties (though some were much higher or lower) and estimated Japanese casualties were usually higher. Non-nuclear attacks are also devastating, the fire-bombing of Tokyo likely killed about twice as the attack on Hiroshima

The US considered simply demonstrating a bomb to convince the Japanese to surrender, but ultimately it was decided that this would be more likely to be ineffective. Considering that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was used this assessment was very likely accurate.

The purpose of the military is to defeat the enemy. If you can drop 2 atomic bombs and end the war without US casualties you have accomplished a large military victory at very low military cost to the US.

Argue against the use of nuclear attacks on Japan on other factors if you like, but stating there was no military reason reveals ignorance or worse on your part.

Re:Wait... what?

[aliquis]

Your good vs bad seem an awful lot like west vs the rest ..

Also I don't see why the US couldn't use theirÂs first.

I know a good target which is even an ally to the country but I guess power and possibly stability is more important than human rights and politics. .. or it's about the possibly outcome, or millions of lives. Or whatever.

Maybe it's just against nasty happening at a huge scale in a short time?

Or they are afraid that if they used it that would had told the world it's ok and after that any country would be fine with using it too? .. then again the US is the only country which has used it. .. the good guys ;) .. seeing how that alliance stuff work I guess one could question why it was important and why the Germans was stopped. Was it because bad bad Germans or was it because OMG GERMANY MIGHT BECOME THE WORLDS SUPERPOWER #1!?

I'm not a fan of communism or lack of freedom. At all. But what has China done really? They show some interest of some islands outside of their coast and.. more importantly may become the regional superpower of at least that part of the Pacific / Asia?

As for global conflicts in what way is China worse than UK, France and the US of A?

Maybe also India.. Who were the colonizers again?

Anyway, to be fair my country is being colonized.
Invaded.
Settled.
Having our law and society overthrown by those moving in.
Living of our wealth.

And while our constitution accept the Sami people and I guess Kurds, Copti and Yazidi our-self as a people is denied. All that matter supposedly is citizenship and not even that matter much. What matter is who's within the borders and then everything belong to them too. Possibly even when they are outside of the borders too and just live anywhere on the planet.

There's a difference in a people and citizenship. I don't feel it's correct that people take control over the meaning of the word to by that way deny peoples feeling of belonging and union. Neither with all the lies about how everyone supposedly want just the same as we do. Or acts as we do. They necessarily don't.

If Russia nuked once would the US start nuking Russia? Really? ..

All ideologies based on enforcing shit by violence are more risky to use it. I guess the idea of freedom may count there too.. Though I consider that one the better one.

I personally don't know where I've got the US as far as foreign politics go. Regional power and stability seem like it may be more important than helping people fighting for freedom quite often. And I guess the behavior isn't consistent.

Personally I wouldn't mind a global society based on freedom, possibly well-fare, shared resources and some control for how they are used (not necessarily central planed though. Something like really high taxes on environmental pollution and resource consumption.)

Re:Wait... what?

[Hognoxious]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?

Take out NAS North Island, military target. US gets annoyed. World opinion unpredictable, depending on what led up to it. US might nuke you a bit in return. Might let you off if you say sorry and surrender immediately, pretty please, blaming rogue elements etc.

Take out San Diego, massive civilian casualties plus fallout and shit. US will be more than a bit cross. World opinion will be mostly on their side, apart from anyone stupid enough to listen to Putin. US almost certain to blow you to fuck.

Re:Wait... what?

[dmaul99]

The Japanese leadership did not see the atomics as significantly worse than what they had already suffered due to the sustained bombings their cities had endured in which many more civilians died than from both the bombs combined. What did it for them was the Soviet Union declaring war on them and rapidly taking Manchuria and able to invade via the relatively undefended north and western borders in very short order, like one or two weeks time instead of the months it would take the Americans to get on with it.

There was no point to a valiant stand against the Americans, they would be slaughtered by the Soviets from the other end. At this point they surrendered and to save face, in a way, they attributed their defeat to the magic bomb against which there was no honor in facing.

The US knew this of course, that neither invasion nor the abomb were necessary to end the war because the Soviets would take care of it, but then it was about who got to dictate the terms of surrender and keeping Japan's resources and conquered territories out of Soviet hands. Not an unreasonable motive, which is hard to say when 150-200 thousand civilians died by the bombs, but many more than that would have died by a Soviet invasion or an American one or both. Some in Hirohito's inner circle wanted to bring it to that, fight till the last man woman and child.

Also, the bombs were punitive. I'm not saying this to express approval or disapproval of this, but after all - it is these civilians who sent their sons to massacre the Chinese, taught them that they were the master race to rule the world, commit atrocities, etc. Nanking, Unit 731 (thought Auschwitz was the worst place you could possibly imagine?), etc etc etc

Lastly, just as the Japanese were able to have a "neat" reason to surrender, the Americans wanted a big final bang to symbolize victory and to take their place as the world's #1 superpower, knowing the Soviet Union was going to be competing with them for that claim.

This is a silly article

[HBI]

Only in the eyes of an ivory tower theoretical type could the tripwire of nuclear weapons first use be "eased" by "low yield". No matter how low the yield, the secondary effects of the nuclear weapon remain the same. It remains a WMD. If someone lobs a "low yield" nuke at you, do you think you're going to blink an eye before using your own arsenal? The whole premise is silly.

Nuclear disarmament is a fool's errand. The deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal cannot easily be understated. All nations would aspire to it, if it were possible. They aren't going away, and reducing the arsenal below a certain point may actually be more destabilizing than maintaining more warheads. (see below)

The construction of newer weapons has no impact on the equation, except on the counterforce mission. It might make it easier to destroy your opponent's arsenal, but you still retain the SSBN problem, meaning that in practical terms there is no difference. But newer anti-missile technologies have a similar but greater destabilizing effect on deterrence, as they CAN shoot down the SSBN-based missiles.

tl;dr - article is a bunch of pointless hot air

Nukes will always be in our back-pocket

[TWX]

As long as other powers have nukes or have developed them and could develop them again then we'll have nukes. And as long as we have nukes then other countries will continue to have them as a deterrent against us.

It doesn't matter how crude or sophisticated the device is- the two nukes that were used in conflict were just about as crude as one could get and they still each destroyed a city in one stroke.

Science always progresses faster than poltiical thought. It's not usually science that uses the developments for ill intead of for benefit though, that's firmly in the realm of politics. That we've only used nuclear weapons in anger twice, effectively in one drawn-out moment in history, and have not used them cavalierly subsequently is hopefully proof that we're maturing, however slowly.

Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success. Only a complete idiot or a warmonger of the most evil type would call for nuclear disarmament. Of course, one of those groups is very useful for the other.

If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.

Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Flavianoep]

If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.

I'm answering you by quoting you, hoping that you pay attention to what you said.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[dryeo]

Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.

I guess that is why places like the middle east and Afghanistan are so peaceful.

Disarmamant?

[serviscope_minor]

I frankly don't believe that disarmament is ever going to happen because too many people want power. So, the nuclear powers are:

France - never going to disarm because they've been invaded twice in living memory (just) and suffered awful consequences. Never going to happen again.

USA - lolno.

Russia - yeah Putin is totally going to disarm when everyone does because he's such a nice guy. I think he'd wet himself with glee if everyone else disarmed.

India - not until Pakistan disarms, because Pakistan is way too unstable (and probably not even then).

Pakistan - not until India disarms, and, well, who will be a serious power without them.

North Korea - well, they're a total basket case of a country so whatever they do wouldn't surprise me. But evil dictators aren't know for relinquishing power.

Iseael - disarm while they're surrounded by hostile nations who tried to wipe them off the map within living memory? Not likely.

China - eeeynope. I think they're going to keep on growing their power, and not being uninvadable is not a good way to do that.

UK - I don't think we actually will (I really hope).

Re:Disarmamant?

[Flavianoep]

UK - Don't you remember being alone fighting most of a continent (under German rule), a little more than a 100 since you were alone fighting most of the same continent (under French rule)?

Re:Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you gave France the excuse that they've been invaded twice, but the Russians, who have suffered exactly the same (and to much worse consequences), just want to keep their nukes because they're just bastards.

Re:Disarmamant?

[smoore]

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.

Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.

not necessarily ridiculous

[Chirs]

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.

this is exactly the point

[Chirs]

Imagine if there was a precision guided tactical nuke that was basically equivalent to 10 conventional precision guided bombs. People would be much more likely to use it.

John Oliver on Nuclear Weapons

[codemachine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As usual, John Oliver has a great rant on the subject.

Right now, the US has more nuclear weapons than they can safely take care of. Manning the silos is now a demoralizing job, because those people basically do nothing and yet the job is tremendously tedious. So it ends up being done by people who really shouldn't be in such an important position, and do not take enough care in their job, especially given the dangers if something were to go wrong.

The US is the only country to drop a nuke on a civilian population. Everyone knows about when they dropped a couple on Japan, but few people remember when they accidentally dropped one on North Carolina. It did not explode, but it was one of a number of close calls that have happened over the years.

As it is being managed now, the nuclear deterrent is more of a danger to the US than to anyone else, though it is also a danger to planet as a whole. I don't think a complete disarmament makes any sense in the short term, but a move towards scaling back to safe and sustainable levels would make sense. However, those that benefit from such massive and useless military spending are not about to let it happen without a fight.