Nuclear Weapons

[Ruby]

Either way, with the situation how it is currently, nobody is going to unprovokedly nuke anyone, and it makes you stroke your beard before launching an assault, so I don't have problems with them.

Any talk of the "current situation" is irrelevant. Even if North Korea and Iran get rid of their nuclear weapons, we can't be sure that other nuclear enemies won't arise in the future. That means, no matter how long we wait, we can never know that all threats have passed. Given this, your line of argument leads unavoidably to the conclusion that we should keep our nuclear deterrent literally for ever. I think that won't work. In the course of the next thousand years - or however long you expect humanity to live - something will go wrong. If the nuclear weapons are there, and you wait long enough, at some point there will be a nuclear war. It is simple probability.
Now, if like me you believe that full nuclear war is the worst possible thing that could happen, then I think I have shown that disarming is the only choice.

Edit. In short: Waiting leads nowhere - because what are we waiting for? And trying to keep the weapons for ever will only mean we end up using them, which would be the worst outcome, at least to me. The only option left is to disarm.

 

[Tailsy]

I give the Scots a lot of grief (especially over no uni fees wtf is wrong with you people) but this is one thing that you guys get right.

Off-topic, but yeah, we're really racist about that! :D You only get your tuition fees paid if you are

- Scottish
- Within the EU but not from England or Wales

Which, by the way, is how we can afford to pay for that. All the posh English people who go to our unis because they're 'easier' to get into pay our tuition fees for us 8)

 

[opaltiger]

especially over no uni fees wtf is wrong with you people

You realise tuition fees are a very recent thing, right.

 

[Ruby]

All the posh English people who go to our unis because they're 'easier' to get into pay our tuition fees for us 8)

And then the American brats and other overseas people pay most of our tuition fees for us.

 

[Tailsy]

And then the American brats and other overseas people pay most of our tuition fees for us.

But they don't though.

 

[Ruby]

But they don't though.

But then why do they pay twenty times more than me :(

 

[Tailsy]

But then why do they pay twenty times more than me :(

Because it's funny.

And it's probably still cheaper than studying in their own freakin' country.

 

[nastypass]

Who's saying a terrorist will get his hands on a nuke in the first place? If we're really worried about that, then we might as well start investing in a nuclear defense system instead of creating more missiles.

Pakistan currently has and estimated 70-90 nuclear warheads. Iran is suspected by many to be developing them as well.
Guess who's allegedly supported the Taliban during the Afghan war.

Now, I am, of course, not saying that either of them are likely to simply hand over nuclear secrets to terrorists, however, they are in the region, and it's only a matter of time before somebody with ill intent gets their hands on a bomb, and it only takes one.

Also, what? Where are you getting the idea that I'm in support of more nukes to counter this? If anything creating more will just make it easier for terrorists to get their hands on them; the sooner we destroy our stockpiles the better, in my opinion.

(also, yet another thread nearly derailed by brits and their silly educational system, whee)

 

[Tailsy]

It's not silly. At least our systems make SENSE, and you don't just do what is basically another two years of high school in college for no seemingly apparent reason before you actually DO what you actually /wanted/ to in the first place!!!

 

[Tarvos]

But would you rather be blown up? - or in any case have large areas of the world destroyed and irradiated?

That's not the options. The option is keeping them as a threat to keep rogue nations at bay, or not keeping them and getting invaded for sure. The whole point is that if you can explode their countries at the flick of a switch, they will think twice about invading.

It is preposterous to assume everyone will be in it for the greater good. There's always a way to fuck up a system. Unity fosters a bunch of rebels which fosters a new unity etc. etc.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Even if disarming means being invaded by North Korea and Iran, which I doubt, would that not still be preferable to nuclear war?

I think you misunderstood the point. If most of the nations of the world disarm, North Korea probably won't, so NK nukes its now-weakened opponents.

So it's more of a nuclear war/nuclear annihilation dichotomy, which isn't really a dichotomy because they're the same thing.

Of course, I live in the neutral country that everyone likes, so I'm probably not gonna get nuked either way.

 

[Tailsy]

People like Ireland?

That's news...

 

[Tarvos]

But they have such cute accents!

 

[Ruby]

That's not the options. The option is keeping them as a threat to keep rogue nations at bay, or not keeping them and getting invaded for sure. The whole point is that if you can explode their countries at the flick of a switch, they will think twice about invading.

Well, I think I have dealt with that idea in my most recent reply to Pwnemon.

I think you misunderstood the point. If most of the nations of the world disarm, North Korea probably won't, so NK nukes its now-weakened opponents.

So it's more of a nuclear war/nuclear annihilation dichotomy, which isn't really a dichotomy because they're the same thing.

It seems much more likely that they would blackmail us or invade than nuke us.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Well, I think I have dealt with that idea in my most recent reply to Pwnemon.

1. Nuclear weapons exist.
2. ???
3. Nuclear war will inevitably occur.

You seem to be missing a minor premise.

It seems much more likely that they would blackmail us or invade than nuke us.

> We disarm
> North Korea blackmails us
> We give in
> We get taken over by an oppressive, failed communist regime whose citizens have no human rights

> We disarm
> North Korea blackmails us
> We don't give in
> We get nuked

> We don't disarm
> North Korea does nothing
> Nothing happens

 

[Ruby]

1. Nuclear weapons exist.
2. ???
3. Nuclear war will inevitably occur.

Yes, sorry, I'm no good at explaining things. What I was getting at in that post is that trying to maintain mutually assured destruction for the rest of history isn't going to work. The probability of an accident, or a preemptive strike caused by a false alarm, or the rise of a mad or belligerent leader on one side or the other - or the probability of any other such event that would lead to nuclear war - increases with every year. If we happen to be optimistic enough to believe that humanity will be around for at least another few millenia, then it seems reasonable to say that the probability that one of these events will happen eventually is very high, even certain. Well, if you accept that estimation of probability, what you have also accepted is that having nuclear weapons for ever will probably mean nuclear war. If you want to avoid nuclear war at all costs, as I do, it means getting rid of the weapons at some point. All that remains to be decided is when. Bearing in mind that we can never be sure that "all threats have passed" (that there will be no more Irans), can you give any good reason for doing it later rather than now?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Yes, sorry, I'm no good at explaining things. What I was getting at in that post is that trying to maintain mutually assured destruction for the rest of history isn't going to work. The probability of an accident, or a preemptive strike caused by a false alarm, or the rise of a mad or belligerent leader on one side or the other - or the probability of any other such event that would lead to nuclear war - increases with every year.

Okay, my apologies, as I've barely studied probability in school but wouldn't the probability of any of those things happening remain constant each passing year?

Also, several mad, belligerent leaders have taken control of countries with nuclear weapons but that's quite the point of mutually-assured destruction, isn't? Not even Kim Jong-Il is mad enough to launch a nuke, knowing that America, Russia, the UK, India, Pakistan, etc. have nukes.

That's not to mention the fact that, although everyone might think it now and then, people aren't actually as stupid as they look. There's hundreds of failsafes to prevent accidents happening, military intelligence is powerful enough to not get tricked by a false alarm and contrary to the popular image portrayed in cartoons and even respectable media outlets, David Cameron doesn't actually have a red button underneath his desk to launch nukes with. Even the order of an absolute dictator like Kim Jong-Il would probably be defied if he wanted a nuclear strike, let alone a pathetic little git like David Cameron.

If we happen to be optimistic enough to believe that humanity will be around for at least another few millenia, then it seems reasonable to say that the probability that one of these events will happen eventually is very high, even certain.

Again, maybe my knowledge of probability isn't up to speed with yours, but that doesn't seem kosher to me. You're saying that the fact that nukes existence means that eventually they will be used?

Well, if you accept that estimation of probability, what you have also accepted is that having nuclear weapons for ever will probably mean nuclear war.

I don't accept that estimation of probability because you haven't justified it.

If you want to avoid nuclear war at all costs, as I do, it means getting rid of the weapons at some point. All that remains to be decided is when. Bearing in mind that we can never be sure that "all threats have passed" (that there will be no more Irans), can you give any good reason for doing it later rather than now?

I don't believe in doing it ever because if it happens, I believe a rogue nation like North Korea will take advantage of it. You seem to have confused my stance with Pwnemon's.

 

[opaltiger]

> We disarm
> North Korea blackmails us
> We give in
> We get taken over by an oppressive, failed communist regime whose citizens have no human rights

> We disarm
> North Korea blackmails us
> We don't give in
> We get nuked

> We don't disarm
> North Korea does nothing
> Nothing happens

Contrary to popular belief this doesn't actually make you look smart, nor does it mysteriously invalidate any sequence of events you haven't mentioned.

Okay, my apologies, as I've barely studied probability in school but wouldn't the probability of any of those things happening remain constant each passing year?

It only needs to happen once. If the probability of event A happening in any given year is x, in ten years the probability that it will have happened once is 10x.

That's not to mention the fact that, although everyone might think it now and then, people aren't actually as stupid as they look. There's hundreds of failsafes to prevent accidents happening, military intelligence is powerful enough to not get tricked by a false alarm and contrary to the popular image portrayed in cartoons and even respectable media outlets, David Cameron doesn't actually have a red button underneath his desk to launch nukes with. Even the order of an absolute dictator like Kim Jong-Il would probably be defied if he wanted a nuclear strike, let alone a pathetic little git like David Cameron.

Just one example. And yes, that was a long time ago. It can still happen, and it only needs to happen once.

Again, maybe my knowledge of probability isn't up to speed with yours, but that doesn't seem kosher to me. You're saying that the fact that nukes existence means that eventually they will be used?

Yes. There's a certain probability that a nuclear warhead will be used in any given year; the only way that this probability will be 0 is if there are no nuclear warheads. Thus, given sufficiently many years, the probability gets higher and higher. If we never get rid of nuclear weapons, that probability reaches (theoretically) 1. Thus the only solution is disarmament.

EDIT: Also, I think you and pretty much everyone in favour of nuclear weapons hugely overestimates the abilities of Iran and North Korea to actually use nuclear weapons.

 

[Pwnemon]

Contrary to popular belief this doesn't actually make you look smart, nor does it mysteriously invalidate any sequence of events you haven't mentioned.

He was replying to Ruby's point that we would be blackmailed instead of nuked. In that case, he must only consider instances involving blackmail, and I believe he covered all the bases there.

It only needs to happen once. If the probability of event A happening in any given year is x, in ten years the probability that it will have happened once is 10x.

Yes. There's a certain probability that a nuclear warhead will be used in any given year; the only way that this probability will be 0 is if there are no nuclear warheads. Thus, given sufficiently many years, the probability gets higher and higher. If we never get rid of nuclear weapons, that probability reaches (theoretically) 1. Thus the only solution is disarmament.

Oh man, I learned this in sixth grade! "Jimmy is standing in line for a carnival game. He's excited because it says one in four people will win, and the three people ahead of him in line lost the game. He believes he is automatically going to win. Is he correct?" The obvious answer is no, and this is the exact same situation. Every year, the slate is wiped clean. Let's say there's a one in ten thousand chance of a nuclear false alarm causing armageddon. The next year, it won't magically escalate to one in 9999 because the last year passed.

EDIT: Also, I think you and pretty much everyone in favour of nuclear weapons hugely overestimates the abilities of Iran and North Korea to actually use nuclear weapons.

Israel doesn't.

 

[Ruby]

opal has clarified my argument very well and I have nothing to add, except one thing. When talking about these massive spans of time, like thousands of years, don't overlook how radically the world has changed even in the last, say, five hundred years. It is a mistake to think that the political situation will stay roughly as it is from now on. Assuring us that anybody who becomes a political leader will be reasonably sane, and that anyhow they won't have absolute power, begins to sound naive or even stupid when you remember that the world in 2510 will probably be even more different from today than today is from 1510.