Comments on: Not Getting It Right: More Bad Reasons to Have Nuclear Weapons

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:52:39 +0000

As a European I would like to add my 2 cents in this discussion.
I believe we (the west) have no right to deny any country the right to create and own nuclear weapons.
In fact, the US is not only arrogant but ignorant in its attempts to assure that Iran does not acquire a nuke. What the US effectively is saying to Iran is: you are not responsible enough as a country to have a nuclear arsenal. Now nothing is more insulting than being told that you are not responsible enough, its as if Iran is a little kid who is not allowed to play with the other big countries in the world. This only gives the Iran government extra arguments to brainwash their own people that the west is out to get them. And how can you blame Iran for wanting a nuke when their neighbouring country (Iraq) was recently invaded for the same reason of allegedy having weapons of mass destruction. Simple fact is if Iran has a nuke the US loses its dominance in the area, therefore losing its control on the largest oil supplies in the world.
Why do you think it is that Russia has no problem with selling nuclear capability to Iran? The cold war may be over but world politics have not changed.

By: Lyle Brecht

Lyle Brecht — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:16:46 +0000

The U.S. is at a crossroads. For more than fifty years it has engaged a Deterrence Doctrine based on the strategic game of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) developed in the early 1950’s. MAD, in both its strong and weak forms, relies on producing deterrence of the First Use of nuclear weapons through the promise of a devastating counterattack with nuclear weapons. However, after fifty years of collected data, it is apparent that this game strategy is unwinnable. Only a failure of leadership and lack of vision propels us to continue playing this unwinnable game. Some of my thinking on this topic is at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16490356/Nuclear-Posture-Review-Rethinking-Deterrence-Doctrine

By: josh keegan

josh keegan — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:46:41 +0000

argh! Tell me if i’m way off here.. But isn’t this all way screwed up anyway..? The fact we delved into this nuclear science and it’s use in weaponry has sealed our own coffins.. Simply because: “NUCLEAR WEAPONS SPAWN THE NEED FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS”. So we obviously will have to start doing our best to back track, because arming ourselves more will only cause these flagged nuclear countries to increase their stockpiles. But is it all too little too late now? We can never be sure who the enemy’s are, and what they posess. Western countries need to drop out of this arms race… Have we learnt nothing from previous wars?

If we abandon nuclear weapons, we may within a number of days all be blown up by our enemies who can see we are defenceless or more likely unable to retaliate. But if we continue to grow the number of weapons we have, the threats will grow, as will the war climate until we are all either dead, or cast into a Nuclear Winter… to soon die…

“NUCLEAR WEAPONS SPAWN THE NEED FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS”

By: yousaf

yousaf — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:04:37 +0000

RRW will be detrimental to our security:

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/reports/redefining-deterrence/redefining-deterrence-is-rrw-detrimental-to-us-security-ca

That will not stop Cold Warriors for advocating tricking Congress into funding it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726489588925407.html

“Give it a new name, he seems to be suggesting, and try again to get Congress to fund it.”

By: Rosa

Rosa — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:38:36 +0000

I think the Obama administration has taken a positive first step in opening a dialogue about non-proliferation at the G8 summit. This video has more background http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama_s_nuclear_pipe_dream. As the video points out, the agreement as it is now is not effective. It deals only with vertical proliferation, this is a misstep in my opinion. While it is important for the U.S. and Russia ( who collectively hold 95% of the global nuclear arsenal) to reduce stockpiles, and secure remaining weapons systems, it is far more important to prevent emerging nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea from receiving nuclear technology from Russia. The focus must be on horizontal non-proliferation.

By: Page van der Linden

Page van der Linden — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:28:15 +0000

Very short observation: I’ve only just started scrolling through the white paper, but it’s like a big ad for the RRW. I wonder if that will re-surface sometime in the next few Congresses? Thoughts?

By: Pierce Corden

Pierce Corden — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:05:18 +0000

Dear Ivan,

I scrolled through the stuff, especially about testing. More of the same. I know of no basis for claiming cheating at 20 KT. How can Woolsey assert that Russia is carrying out low-yield testing at NZ? For sure, if they are, it is despite their agreement to zero.

You are promising a separate assessment of what they say about nuclear testing. They do seem to endorse resuming testing now.

It would also be useful to say more about modernization; we are surely doing so with delivery systems, and actually DOE would like to do some with warheads, without testing (not something I’d think advisable).

Best regards,

Pierce

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:31:06 +0000

What I always find very interesting but barely discussed is that all sides on this debate always assume a countervalue strategy.

Without going into the depths of nuclear strategy and attack options — even the “reduction”-side always implies in its arguments (as above), that the United States would launch an counter-population or counter-city strike as retaliation.

Your argument (for example) is: the leader of country X will be deterred by US nuclear forces either on hair-trigger alert (40 minutes) or off-alert (next-day). But how is he deterred at all? (Same argument with safety/reliability).

Let’s say leader X decides to fire a nuclear missile at the Guam military base. Will he be really deterred if the US would fire a nuclear missile at his military bases? Or rather at his industrial (read: population) centers?

All arguments somehow never get into the actual dynamics of targeting. Almost everywhere it is said “even a handful of missile are enough for deterrence”. But this always implies a countervalue strategy which wound end up killing thousands of defenseless civilians.

Or am I totally off-track here?