These countries should not have nukes. They are a threat to all of us, and just because they are 'allowed' doesn't make it right.

I agree with you fundamentally, ora.

Every country with nuclear weapons is a dangerous threat to world peace.

Every country with nuclear weapons should disarm, completely, now.

Your gun control analogy breaks down, because there isn't some authority which controls nukes for all, and you make special pleading to them to allow you have nukes but nobody else... it is more like you make your own guns, and choose not to sell them to black neighbours, because you're afraid of black people...

@ Ora:

To be fair, I don't think any civilian should ever be allowed to own a gun, ever, either.

Well again, we are in agreement.

I think the lack of over-riding authority is the problem though. the NNPT is an attempt to reach an international consensus which would retain all the power and authority that a piece of paper can hold, ie the amount that people choose to give it. But that isn't even close to being enough to stop countries trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The disincentive is the threat of bombing by the US (if you are an enemy of the US) or by Israel (if you have ever threatened to wipe them off the map) and that doesn't really sound like a legal framework with any sort of universal moral basis, which you seem to be looking for.

Compare perhaps with the Antarctica Treaty, or the Treaty for the Use of Outer Space. Both reject/suspend all territorial claims on the given area, and are enforced only by others not recognising any claims. The Outer Space treaty also stipulates no weapons in space (not sure whether the Antarctica can be used for military deployments under the treaty...) So how do you enforce the 'no weapons in space' rule?

Who goes into space to make sure you're not building any space weapons? And what will the consequences be if some nation-state decided to violate this stipulation?

The treaty does not make claims as to moral authority, or possibly even to the practicality of enforcement, the treaty (like the NNPT) only claims legal authority - which is typically much shakier than both legal and moral authority.

You are right jamiet and they should test their ICBM by dropping a warhead in north central England

Why don't you text them your location so the north koreans don't have to guess. While your at it add orthaic's address too

What's your point exactly, Brad?

@ora: North Korea is not a signatory to the NNPT.

Because the spice must flow.

@jamie: i don't recall, but that is usually used as the justification for sanctions against Iran... i guess sanctions only need convincing justification when China or Russia threaten to veto

Actually, it is because NK has a history of being a bad actor internationally and has never been willing to be a responsible citizen but rather engages in mafia activities and all manner of nefarious behavior

To use your gun control analogy, it is like saying that a citizen with a long history of being responsible may get a gun but someone convicted of multiple felonies can't.

Personally I think no one should have nukes. Way too much chance of an accident

problems with nuclear disarmament right now:

1. agreements that bind the entire world might be followed through by the moral countries, but government's in Russia and North Korea would lie their hearts out. people hate to admit it but MAD still exists.

2. our missile defense programs are far from great, and radiation shielding has never progressed out of it's infancy for years. before ANYTHING else we need these reviewed.

3. the capacity to quickly build nukes would still be there, and comparatively faster in countries with a strong nuclear ballistic infrastructure that's most up to date... which is Russia. USA has fallen far behind in that area.'


Nuclear disarmament is possible, but the best solution is not to cower at might of such weaponry, but provide a defense so strong that nuclear weaponry pales in comparison. scientific progress over scientific regression every day of the week.

What's your point exactly, Brad?

@Jamiet99uk. you and orathaic are so anti-american and so pro north korean that you should accept some of their missile technology in a dynamic delivery.

I served with US Naval Forces Korea and have been to Panmunjom twice. The Kim family is the same as a Chicago gangster family from the 1920's. They are so out of control as to be a real threat to world peace. The grandfather started the Korean War against the wishes of the Communist Chinese and the Soviets. That little Kim may start a war is not improbable anymore. To even joke about their legitimacy is an affront.

"the best solution is not to cower at might of such weaponry, but provide a defense so strong that nuclear weaponry pales in comparison. scientific progress over scientific regression every day of the week."

Yeah, no.

Weapons are always being developed before defenses.

@JK

"Weapons are always being developed before defenses."

what. how on earth does that apply to what i wrote? i'm saying we need to CREATE better missile defense systems and find a more effective way to combat radiation fallout than simply quarantines.

nuclear arms have been around for decades... so i'm not sure what your point is. like that fails on every intellectual level as a rebuttal.

Point is that the next weapon's system is currently being developed. We have a fragile nuclear stability with MAD. As soon as one nation gains superiority of defense (which really is only a pipe dream with thousands of delivery systems out there), then the arms race will accelerate.

Read between the lines. Or get some wisdom.

North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it commands respect. They saw Libya giving up its uranium and then the country got rid of the old regime. Iran was threatening to go nuclear and the US ended its trade embargo.

Why give it up until they get something useful from the US and the world?

@JK

will the defense systems against non-nuclear ballistic missiles are actually conceptually complete. the implementation of one such system is much more of a fiscal issue than anything else.

radiation shielding is a much more potent problem for nations to face, and what we need to focus on.

furthermore, the "next weapon's system" is an interesting and very vague threat. dos you mean rail gun technology? which is definitely to be feared, but not NEAR nuclear bomb level of terrifying.

frankly biological and chemical warfare are the only two that rival nuclear arms in any respect here

but onto your claim about the accelerating arms race: i believe you're reading the paradigm wrong.


let's look at the history cryptology for one second. we have had a constant struggle in-between codemakers and codebreakers for centuries... millennia in fact. ignoringing steganography and focusing purely on cryptography: we had the mono alphabetic cipher created, and there was widespread security in code. then letter frequency analysis was created. then we had the polyalphabetic cipher, and then we had the Babbage/Kasiski analysis

and then the game changed, the One Time Cipher pad: a TRULY uncrackable code. no analysis by even a Quantum computer can break it. the problem with the OTCP was the distribution mechanism. and the game changed as Turing, in cracking the enigma machine that tried to address distributive problems, created the electric computer and brought us into a new age. we were an interconnected world with no truly secure codes, until PGP. after PGP and public key cryptography, code makers have won, and this has allowed the commercialization of much of the internet to exist.

the defense won in this case. most "hacks" you see now are done by bad programming or other human errors. try rarely do you see a truly inspired piece of malware break through encryption anymore. there of course have been slight variations since, but until someone breaks Riemann's Sum, we have a secure system.


Arms have progressed very similarly to cryptography, the sword was met with the shield, met with the catapult met with the castle (a ridiculous progression line, but the advancement of weaponry in terms of defensive and offensive capability are linear over time, though many times only in quality of ore and craftsmanship). gunpowder ruined war, and machine guns demanded trenches. but these things merely replaced the pen with the typewriter: to get to the internet-level of war: we needed Oppenheimer.

we have always known how to defend against or reasonably avoid a weapon, but with nuclear technology this is not the case. Reagan's star wars was the first attempt to address the problem directly. much of the left has demanded nuclear disarmament, a short term solution, that men of malice and ill will are sure to ignore. once the idea is created it CANNOT be buried, and the same goes for things in the physical realm all the same.

your reading of the paradigm is that currently we are in a state of balance because the aggressors are winning, i'm saying if we create an effective nuclear missile defense system: it's going to be a defensive race, not an offensive one.


but clearly i've put zero thought into this issue. and let me take your advice "Read between the lines. Or get some wisdom."

and i have some wisdom:

what would happen if north korea got an effective nuclear defense system operational?

imagine that. soberly.

we would have NOTHING on them. nobody would. our defensive capacities cannot and SHOULD NOT be dismissed out of turn simply because some folk on the left simply want to hide the reality of nuclear arms away and pretend that scientific advancement can march on without it ever being a problem for them again.


WWIII may never come to fruition, but if it does it will not be won by the side with the most nukes, it'll be won by the side who can defend against them.

this can be done by the hacking into our own nuclear missiles, or the creation of a nuclear defense system.

so how bout you get some wisdom. we've ignored this problem for too long, and nuclear disarmament is a lazy lazy attempt at a long term solution

WAIT a MOMENT..Nth Korea should ahve nukes ..ahem they aleady do..nuclear warhead testing and now a delivery system test that is sligtly better than all there other missle tests ..

PAKISTAN a home of uncontrolled terrorist groups DOES have nukes , India does have Nukes , China and Russia and France all have Nukes ..Israel also has nukes.

ONLY ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER USED NUKES on a Civilian population twice and they want to stop others. With the outstanding stable president they now have ...please lets just be seriuos.

Nth Korea is a appaling out come for nuclear weapons as is the USA..

Peace on earth and good will is not that hard when the majority want it..and no it doesnt have to be fought for ..

As soon as you think yes it does you are the same as the other guy..

Peace True Peace is so far off it is almaost a fantasy..so please lets all nuke proliferate..the war can't come to soon enough...

@"you and orathaic are so anti-american and so pro north korean that you should accept some of their missile technology in a dynamic delvery"

Wait a sec, when did anyone here come out as pro-NK?

I clearly made statements which are anti-nuclear weapons.

And i find this surprising, but a lot of what JY said is correct. I disagree on the solutions, i think it is practical to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons by 50% and still maintain MAD.

Just think of the savings, keep the icbms if you want to, recycle the fissible material as fuel, but most importantly, get rid of the oldest unused weapons (which you don't know how well the work).

Now if you want to follow JY's suggestion, then sure, invest the money saved in better defence. This kinda puts the MAD policy at risk, because a combination of better missile defence and less nukes would mean less 'assurance' in the Mutually Assured Destruction.

You don't want a situation where you have a 99% chance of stopping each nuke, and so they send 1,000... Or your missile defence is very good, so they ship it over in a unmarked shipping container - and take out the entire city where the port scanner detects nuclear material.

There will always be ways around even the best defence. In IT they target squishy components - ie the humans, so called 'social engineering' to get your password. They might threaten your family or kidnap you, depending on their options. Any system can be broken, even if we routinely use pgp the makorityof the time.

And one nuke getting through is extremely dangerous.

Also, i'm not sure what good nuclear shielding will be; protection against fallout is ok, but apart from tonnes of concrete (which works fairly well to also protect against your average nuclear blast), i don't know any decent radiation shielding which has potential. Though it would be great to have for space travels, so i don't object to more basic research - just not holding my breath.

Also, for the tecord, the NK government is not good. They waste money on nuclear weapons when their people are starving. But me complaining about these things here isn't going to affect them, because they don't give a shit about what people say online.

I do not support the NK government, or anything they do. Being anti-American doesn't make me pro-North Korean. (And i'm also not anti-American, i am anti-corporate oligarchy, anti-imperialisf, anti-war, anti-nuclear. There are many things the American people believe in which are not pro- those things. And there are many Americans who are also anti- those things.)

Maybe because they make daily announcements stating that as soon as they have a missle that can reach D.C. they'll launch it unprovoked faster than your grandmother's freshly baked apple pie is devoured?

@Manwe, you seem to be ignoring the desire to see a Universal morality, ie a rule which applies equally well to the US and NK.

The general rule should be that any country should be able to have them. Nothing has done more to promote world peace than nuclear proliferation. But, when you express an intent to use them in an offensive manner, you lose your ability to get/keep them. It's no different than a firearm. If someone walks into a gun shop and asks to buy a gun so they can go shoot their noisy neighbor, they obviously shouldn't be allowed to get the weapon.

"problems with nuclear disarmament right now:

1. agreements that bind the entire world might be followed through by the moral countries, but government's in Russia and North Korea would lie their hearts out. people hate to admit it but MAD still exists."

- You forgot Israel.

"2. our missile defense programs are far from great, and radiation shielding has never progressed out of it's infancy for years. before ANYTHING else we need these reviewed."

- we regularly test our missle defense grid. Not sure where you got the impression its outdated

"3. the capacity to quickly build nukes would still be there, and comparatively faster in countries with a strong nuclear ballistic infrastructure that's most up to date... which is Russia. USA has fallen far behind in that area.'"

This is rather silly. Russian nuclear technology is not advanced beyond ours. Even so - who cares. If russia wants to nuke the planet then we all die anyway.


"Nuclear disarmament is possible, but the best solution is not to cower at might of such weaponry, but provide a defense so strong that nuclear weaponry pales in comparison. scientific progress over scientific regression every day of the week.""

Nah best solution is to stop making more nukes and start getting rid of old ones

@Manwe, so you are setting up a system which encourages countries (or citizens) to lie about their intentions when developing nuclear weapons (or purchasing firearms).

How difficult is it for a country to lie about it's intentions? How easy is it to tell whether a country will use the weapons or not?

I mean, most countries are assumed to behave like rational self-interested agents. That means we can assume NK will not use nukes to attack america, because what they actually want is the ability to use the threat of nukes to leverage diplomatic advantage over the US; the reason they are talking about using nuclear weapons, is so others will take them seriously.

Now, i believe that this assumption is flawed, because there have been many accidents where nuclear weapons were nearly fired because of mistakes with radar, and imperfect information. Having them is simply too dangerous. For anyone. (and i'd make similar arguements about personal firearms).

@BB JY didn't say the missile defence was outdated. It is infact the best in the world, and can shoot down approximately 60% of incoming missiles. which fits with whta JY said "our missile defense programs are far from great" - not what you imagined JY said about them being outdated.

60% is not great when Russia has enough nukes that 40% will still kill 99% of the people...

@"Nah best solution is to stop making more nukes and start getting rid of old ones"

There at least i'm with you...

@orathaic:

Who wrote the following? (It's someone I have silnced) @"you and orathaic are so anti-american and so pro north korean that you should accept some of their missile technology in a dynamic delvery"