6 ms·

> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the I

> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any. The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world. What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

sanxiyn 11y ago
What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.
lsd5you 11y ago
You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war - because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?). - because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists. Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.
- jilebedev 11y ago
  > proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it. The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.
  - bardworx 11y ago
    There are a few issues with your assumption that, and this is coming from an immigrant of former USSR. 1. It's not the nation-states that posses nuclear weapons that are the most dangerous, it is a possibility of an extremist group getting nuclear weapons. Countries has something to fear, a small criminal/terrorist organization does not. 2. US and Russia has similar nuclear stockpiles, how come economic distribution is different between the two? Nuclear weapons does not make you a "super-power", economy does. Example: Germany has no nuclear weapons yet are an economic power.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  It occurs to me that there are (crude) parallels between guns and atomic weapons. It seems inconsistent to be in favor of gun control (because too many people are proving to be irresponsible with them), but against nuclear weapons control (because surely those people will be responsible, right?)
xamolxix 11y ago
> What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power? Increases the risk of nuclear war?
- arethuza 11y ago
  I thought nuclear weapons were supposed to deter wars?
dantheman 11y ago
One of the key elements of the NPT is that eventually Nuclear Weapon States will disarm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Second_pillar:_disarmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
- emiliobumachar 11y ago
  Eventually, but they never commit to a date. "Forever minus one day"?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - danbruc 11y ago
      But why are we not at zero? Because there is some kind of value in possessing nuclear weapons. There were so many nuclear weapons that it didn't really hurt to get rid of a lot of them, the really meaningful steps are getting rid of the last hundred, the last ten and of course the last one. So as long as the nuclear powers keep a couple of them they keep most of the value of being a nuclear power while denying that value to all other countries seeking this power. The USA could really strengthen their position by just getting rid of all its nuclear weapons. And even then they would still be in a better position because there is still the knowledge to build new ones.
Steko 11y ago
Hmm, China and Russia are not what most people would consider US allies and Russia has roughly the same number as the US (~46% of world's stockpile) and the US has opposed proliferation to other allies I would question your reasoning to the 'unstated implication'.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- danbruc 11y ago
  So you are implying that if Iran had handed in the correct forms everybody would be okay with them building nuclear weapons, STUXNET would not have happened and so on?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- simonh 11y ago
  > ...The problem isn't that Iran (et al) pursues nuclear weapons. The problem is that they lied to the international community to get assistance from others in developing them... That's only technically correct. Iran signed on to the NPT under the Shah. The post revolutionary government never signed or ratified the treaty, so saying 'they' lied when signing up for it is a somewhat contorted interpretation of event. Yes they inherited treaty obligations from the Shah's government, and the international community hold them to those treaties according to international law, but it's quite possible the post-revolutionary government don't quite see the moral dimensions of the situation the way you do.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
nikdaheratik 11y ago
It isn't brazen arrogance. Limiting the number of countries that have nuclear weapons is a clear (though not explicitly stated) foreign policy goal. The U.S. wants to preserve the current balance of power, and prevent big wars that could disrupt its interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Keeping one state from getting nukes and forcing other neighboring states to do the same, or raising tensions like has happened between India and Pakistan fits right into that goal. So does stationing troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and keeping a fleet ready in the Middle East. And it's not really about ultimatums, as much as using every tool it can to change the cost/benefit analysis of nukes to keep most countries from going for them. No one wants to be the next North Korea, and that's one big reason why the embargo against Iran helped to bring them to the negotiating table. The U.S. policy on Israel has probably done more to irritate other states than the nuclear policy as alot of states hate Israel, but most don't care as much about getting nuclear weapons. Japan and a number of other big countries could get them if they wanted. OTOH, a number of countries "hate" the U.S. but wouldn't want to take over the cost of playing policeman all the time, and overall like the stability policy brings.

sanxiyn 11y ago

What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.

lsd5you 11y ago

You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war - because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?). - because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists. Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.

jilebedev 11y ago
> proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it. The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.
- bardworx 11y ago
  There are a few issues with your assumption that, and this is coming from an immigrant of former USSR. 1. It's not the nation-states that posses nuclear weapons that are the most dangerous, it is a possibility of an extremist group getting nuclear weapons. Countries has something to fear, a small criminal/terrorist organization does not. 2. US and Russia has similar nuclear stockpiles, how come economic distribution is different between the two? Nuclear weapons does not make you a "super-power", economy does. Example: Germany has no nuclear weapons yet are an economic power.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
It occurs to me that there are (crude) parallels between guns and atomic weapons. It seems inconsistent to be in favor of gun control (because too many people are proving to be irresponsible with them), but against nuclear weapons control (because surely those people will be responsible, right?)

xamolxix 11y ago

> What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power? Increases the risk of nuclear war?

arethuza 11y ago
I thought nuclear weapons were supposed to deter wars?

dantheman 11y ago

One of the key elements of the NPT is that eventually Nuclear Weapon States will disarm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Second_pillar:_disarmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

emiliobumachar 11y ago
Eventually, but they never commit to a date. "Forever minus one day"?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - danbruc 11y ago
    But why are we not at zero? Because there is some kind of value in possessing nuclear weapons. There were so many nuclear weapons that it didn't really hurt to get rid of a lot of them, the really meaningful steps are getting rid of the last hundred, the last ten and of course the last one. So as long as the nuclear powers keep a couple of them they keep most of the value of being a nuclear power while denying that value to all other countries seeking this power. The USA could really strengthen their position by just getting rid of all its nuclear weapons. And even then they would still be in a better position because there is still the knowledge to build new ones.

Steko 11y ago

Hmm, China and Russia are not what most people would consider US allies and Russia has roughly the same number as the US (~46% of world's stockpile) and the US has opposed proliferation to other allies I would question your reasoning to the 'unstated implication'.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

danbruc 11y ago
So you are implying that if Iran had handed in the correct forms everybody would be okay with them building nuclear weapons, STUXNET would not have happened and so on?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 11y ago
> ...The problem isn't that Iran (et al) pursues nuclear weapons. The problem is that they lied to the international community to get assistance from others in developing them... That's only technically correct. Iran signed on to the NPT under the Shah. The post revolutionary government never signed or ratified the treaty, so saying 'they' lied when signing up for it is a somewhat contorted interpretation of event. Yes they inherited treaty obligations from the Shah's government, and the international community hold them to those treaties according to international law, but it's quite possible the post-revolutionary government don't quite see the moral dimensions of the situation the way you do.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

nikdaheratik 11y ago

It isn't brazen arrogance. Limiting the number of countries that have nuclear weapons is a clear (though not explicitly stated) foreign policy goal. The U.S. wants to preserve the current balance of power, and prevent big wars that could disrupt its interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Keeping one state from getting nukes and forcing other neighboring states to do the same, or raising tensions like has happened between India and Pakistan fits right into that goal. So does stationing troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and keeping a fleet ready in the Middle East. And it's not really about ultimatums, as much as using every tool it can to change the cost/benefit analysis of nukes to keep most countries from going for them. No one wants to be the next North Korea, and that's one big reason why the embargo against Iran helped to bring them to the negotiating table. The U.S. policy on Israel has probably done more to irritate other states than the nuclear policy as alot of states hate Israel, but most don't care as much about getting nuclear weapons. Japan and a number of other big countries could get them if they wanted. OTOH, a number of countries "hate" the U.S. but wouldn't want to take over the cost of playing policeman all the time, and overall like the stability policy brings.