Can we eliminate nuclear weapons altogether, or does the evolutionary and game theoretic logic of aggression, violence, and deterrence mean we must live with Armageddon hanging over us? Part III
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one nation that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons: Ukraine. In light if the Russian invasion, I doubt if any other nations will be eager to follow their example.
Suppose we reach the goal of there being zero nuclear weapons? What's to stop a state deciding to build some nuclear weapons to achieve leverage over its neighbours? Alternatively, how could we be certain that a state hasn't somehow hidden some nuclear weapons away? E.g. just at the point where we celebrate achieving zero nuclear weapons, a rogue state reveals that we haven't actually done so and it has the remaining weapons and has some demands to make?
If it is a big state like Russia or the United States, that could be true, but if it is a small state like Israel or North Korea the rest of the world could defeat them anyway, although at a cost of a few large cities. Nuclear bombs are not very reliable. The scientists do not really understand them very well and they frequently fail to go off. To be sure of having one detonate it is necessary to have a sizeable stockpile of them. That would be rather hard to hide, especially considering the large number of workers that would be needed to be sacrificed in building them.
Russia will not agree to reduce their stockpile. It has become a sacred value now. I am currently reading Dmitry Adamski's book, "Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy" which describes the Russian "nuclear priesthood" as the most powerful chaplain force in the world. Every leg of the Russian nuclear triad has its own patron saint. Orthodox chaplains are as much in charge of nuclear risk as the old zampolit or kommissars, edging over into nuclear jurisprudence as we speak. Happy talk about disarmament assumes that peace is possible through transactionalism, but Russia is going in quite another direction, making all such schemes less realistic than they ever were before.
Yes, religion plays an important role in many supposedly secular modern nations. In fact, one possible scenario is that some high-level general in the Pentagon, a Christian Fundamentalist from the Bible Belt, may decide that he has a divine mission to bring on Armagedon and launch a nuclear strike on his own initiative.
Another possibility is that Israel uses a nuke against an American city and somehow makes it look as if Iran did it. They could easily attempt to trick the Americans into taking out some of their enemies that way.
Both of these scenarios are examples of how religious fanaticism can take control of modern nation-states and determine military policies.
Any nation with a nuclear reactor can build a nuclear bomb. The techical expertise needed is the same as that needed to run a reactor, no more. The problem lies in the prohibitive cost and complexity of the robotic equipment to handle the materials to avoid fatal exposure of the techicians to radioactivity while building it, but that can be solved by using prisoners or threatening the families of the needed workers.
But the bomb is not a reliable weapon. The actual physics of a so-called ''nuclear explosion'' is very poorly understood. More than 50% of them fail to go off when the order is given. That is why the nuclear nations need to stockpile so many of them. They cannot be sure if they will work or not.
The USA and Russia both have claimed since the 50s that they have intercontinental missiles able to reach the other from their own land, but consider this: The United States wants missiles stationed close to the Russian border and Russia strongly objects to that. Why would either of them care if intercontinental missiles realy existed? And why would the United States care if Russia placed missiles in Cuba if intercontinental missiles were a realistic threat?
I strongly suspect that we are being lied to and there is colusion between the American and Russian rulers to keep up the pretense of a nuclear threat as one more way to keep the public under control.
And while attention is focused on the fantasy danger of a nuclear war of bombs going off, the REAL danger of deliberate covert contamination of an enemy country by radioactive dust from depleted uranium artillery shells is being largely ignored. The United States has already poisoned several nations this way and is set to poison more. This is a much more serious danger than an exchange of atom bombs, most of which would fail to go off if the order was given.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one nation that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons: Ukraine. In light if the Russian invasion, I doubt if any other nations will be eager to follow their example.
Suppose we reach the goal of there being zero nuclear weapons? What's to stop a state deciding to build some nuclear weapons to achieve leverage over its neighbours? Alternatively, how could we be certain that a state hasn't somehow hidden some nuclear weapons away? E.g. just at the point where we celebrate achieving zero nuclear weapons, a rogue state reveals that we haven't actually done so and it has the remaining weapons and has some demands to make?
If it is a big state like Russia or the United States, that could be true, but if it is a small state like Israel or North Korea the rest of the world could defeat them anyway, although at a cost of a few large cities. Nuclear bombs are not very reliable. The scientists do not really understand them very well and they frequently fail to go off. To be sure of having one detonate it is necessary to have a sizeable stockpile of them. That would be rather hard to hide, especially considering the large number of workers that would be needed to be sacrificed in building them.
Russia will not agree to reduce their stockpile. It has become a sacred value now. I am currently reading Dmitry Adamski's book, "Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy" which describes the Russian "nuclear priesthood" as the most powerful chaplain force in the world. Every leg of the Russian nuclear triad has its own patron saint. Orthodox chaplains are as much in charge of nuclear risk as the old zampolit or kommissars, edging over into nuclear jurisprudence as we speak. Happy talk about disarmament assumes that peace is possible through transactionalism, but Russia is going in quite another direction, making all such schemes less realistic than they ever were before.
Yes, religion plays an important role in many supposedly secular modern nations. In fact, one possible scenario is that some high-level general in the Pentagon, a Christian Fundamentalist from the Bible Belt, may decide that he has a divine mission to bring on Armagedon and launch a nuclear strike on his own initiative.
Another possibility is that Israel uses a nuke against an American city and somehow makes it look as if Iran did it. They could easily attempt to trick the Americans into taking out some of their enemies that way.
Both of these scenarios are examples of how religious fanaticism can take control of modern nation-states and determine military policies.
Any nation with a nuclear reactor can build a nuclear bomb. The techical expertise needed is the same as that needed to run a reactor, no more. The problem lies in the prohibitive cost and complexity of the robotic equipment to handle the materials to avoid fatal exposure of the techicians to radioactivity while building it, but that can be solved by using prisoners or threatening the families of the needed workers.
But the bomb is not a reliable weapon. The actual physics of a so-called ''nuclear explosion'' is very poorly understood. More than 50% of them fail to go off when the order is given. That is why the nuclear nations need to stockpile so many of them. They cannot be sure if they will work or not.
The USA and Russia both have claimed since the 50s that they have intercontinental missiles able to reach the other from their own land, but consider this: The United States wants missiles stationed close to the Russian border and Russia strongly objects to that. Why would either of them care if intercontinental missiles realy existed? And why would the United States care if Russia placed missiles in Cuba if intercontinental missiles were a realistic threat?
I strongly suspect that we are being lied to and there is colusion between the American and Russian rulers to keep up the pretense of a nuclear threat as one more way to keep the public under control.
And while attention is focused on the fantasy danger of a nuclear war of bombs going off, the REAL danger of deliberate covert contamination of an enemy country by radioactive dust from depleted uranium artillery shells is being largely ignored. The United States has already poisoned several nations this way and is set to poison more. This is a much more serious danger than an exchange of atom bombs, most of which would fail to go off if the order was given.