The Nuclear Paradox

[coberst]

The Nuclear Problem

 

Most of the major nations are trying to convince Iran that it is not a good idea for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I judge this effort to be reasonable and it is very important for humanity that they succeed.

 

Apparently Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon. I judge this decision to be reasonable and it is very important for Iran that they succeed.

 

Both efforts seem to me to be perfectly rational and justifiable.

 

I suspect that our future will see many more of such actions all with the same rational characteristics.

 

Can humanity survive this logic?

[InfiniteNow]

Some life on the planet may survive the Ill-logic of humanity in these instances, however, humanity itself may not be so fortunate.

 

What is especially troubling for me is that we are sending a message to the globe: If you have nukes, we won't attack, if you do not, we will.

 

How do we expect to have any bargaining power when trying to convince others not to build such weapons when our logic clearly illustrates the benefits to nations with nuclear programs?

[Michaelangelica]

Who has nukes?

UK

France

Russia + old USSR states??

China

India

Pakistan ( in the USA camp rather than Islamic????)

Israel

USA

Who am I forgetting?

 

In the Islamic world I am sure Iran feels out-numbered by Christians, Jews, atheists etc.

They are merely redressing the un-equal balance, by developing their own bomb.

 

What we have to fear in all above countries is fundamentalism.

 

We need to somehow encourage religious and social tolerance (and a fairer world economic system) or we are dead.

--

[coberst]

I contend that Wal-Mart is ‘the logic of capitalism’. I mean that if one follows the principles of capitalism the result would be Wal-Mart. To me this means that in a capitalistic society Wal-Mart is acting logically.

 

When I say that most nations in the world are trying to stop Iran from making a bomb and that this is a rational action I mean that they are following the logic of their principles. Likewise Iran is following the logic of the principles of a sovereign nation.

 

So, when both entities are doing what they are doing we have a situation that if we follow the logic of the matter we will in short order have a world wherein almost all nations will have the bomb or we have a war between the two entities, the group and the one, ad infinitum.

 

The logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was all we could depend upon during the cold war. It appears to me that today we still only have the logic of MAD. When the world is filled with nations with the bomb will not the logic of human action, as we perceive that logic to be from past history, dictate that the bomb will be used?

 

It seems to me that the nations together must find a way to create a goal that all or most nations can accept.

 

The means to reach a goal cannot be determined before the goal is determined. The end drives the means. What goal can all nations agree upon? Is the goal a nuclear free future? Perhaps the means is some sort of police body capable of forcing obedience to a goal. But again the ultimate goal suitable to many or most nations seems to be necessary.

 

I would say that sovereignty is self determination. A political entity, a person or a nation, seeks self determination—sovereignty. Individuals give to the state certain aspects of their sovereignty for the sake of security.

 

A state without some control of the sovereignty of its citizens cannot function. Perhaps the world could afford the luxury of a state of anarchy between nation states in the past when one or a few people did not have the ability to destroy all humanity. Today a few willful people can destroy humanity.

 

Perhaps today’s technology requires us to eliminate sovereign nation states. Perhaps the goal we must establish is the goal of world government wherein all citizens give up more of their sovereignty for the sake of security.

[Michaelangelica]

.

Perhaps today’s technology requires us to eliminate sovereign nation states. Perhaps the goal we must establish is the goal of world government wherein all citizens give up more of their sovereignty for the sake of security.

Yes,

Nationalism has never seems to have helped world peace has it?

Again tolerance between nations is important.

 

I guess earth needs to be invaded by terrorist Venusians?:eek_big:

Then we could get the sociology of in-groups out-groups going?

(see Zimbardo's Standford Prison expriment)

[Boerseun]

Good thread!

 

I think the safest option would be for all countries to hand over control of their nukes to the UN, and MAD would be ensured between ALL countries, not only those with nukes. And nukes could then only be fired by the majority of the world governments' consent - not by some tinpot dictator acting on his own, or some megalomaniac president. And then, if Iran wants to build nukes on its own accord, the UN would be the people to tell Iran that it's not on.

 

Saying that other countries aren't allowed 'weapons of mass distruction', but we are, is hypocritical to the extreme. Like the US, England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan etc. are doing as we speak. The biggest nuclear arsenal as well as biological and chemical warfare stockpiles are in the US. What gives? Why are *they* allowed to, but nobody else? Do they expect the world to live in fear of pissing off the USA for ever, or would developing your own stockpiles in order to protect your sovereignty be a logical next step?

[C1ay]

I think the safest option would be for all countries to hand over control of their nukes to the UN....

Frankly I don't think it's safe to give the U.N. control of anything....

[Zythryn]

Boerseun, LOVE the icon:)

 

Great thread indeed.

I think we need to all get along. But the foundation of the chasm between countries is not nukes, it starts much smaller than that and grows into nukes.

 

We need to, as a global community, come together and figure out a way we can get along.

 

I don't think capatalism, socialism, communism or any other type of government is inherently the problem. The problem in governments of all sorts is corruption.

 

I don't have a solution off hand for corruption. I think if we can get together and say, we want to be at peace and can curtail corruption we have a chance. If not, well, we will continue to build bigger weapons and won't be able to stop someone from using them.

[Cedars]

Looking over the list of nuke countries, (btw, N.Korea was forgotten) of those listed there are only two I fear as using nukes as a first strike at sometime. That is Pakistan and N. Korea. Possibly China but I dont know that they would. Its a more reasonable thought that they would not first strike via nukes. Additionally, if Israel wasnt so dependent on foreign aid from the USA, I would list them also as a likely first strike nation.

 

As far as the UN being the ultimate decision maker for any other countries self defense I would agree with Clay. The UN has been ineffective, bias, and a host of other issues that make me doubt their actual ability to govern such a program. As far as the world fearing the USA in this context I would say this is untrue. It is the economic pressure that creates the most power for the USA and this method is the reaction of choice used by the USA time and again.

 

It is via NATO that real assurances reside for the issues of nuclear proliferation/first strike. I think the UN and other nations which are trying to reason with Iran and N. Korea should keep up what they are doing, but I also think that it is good that there is the big stick of NATO lurking in the background, separate from the agreements/boundries of the UN.

 

The countries whos nuclear arsenals that we do fear, need to be assured that there is such an entity that cannot be manipulated by the methods used in the UN to keep actions from occuring. *what I mean by this is the lack of reaction to issues such as genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, and a host of other issues the UN has not reacted to in a timely manner.

 

I have not decided yet whether the reaction to N. Korea and Iran should be an attack on the nuclear facilities as we believe their locations to be, to destroy the capability of these countries to continue to be/pursue nuclear nation status.

[skuzie]

Let us ponder where we are heading, more and more states will have nuclear arsenals. Advancements in technology and the continued spread of knowledge will continue to make nukes easier and more accessible to develop. It will be inevitable that a small group of individuals with the will to build a nuke will be successful. Should we really worry about governments and regimes building them today when in reality we should be worried about the advancement in nuclear technology in general, in any case any WMD in general.

 

The real solution and savior to this problem is I believe technology. There will always be people that will have the will to cause great destruction, and you can’t blame this on religions, governments, or any other social bodies, it is our nature. Technology is the only way we can develop fail safe guards that will save up from ultimate destruction.

 

Perhaps we can develop super sensitive snifters that will locate WMDs at a great distance before they’re usable and produced in great amounts. Perhaps we should become one world government where any traces of WMDs knowledge is harshly censored and punishable. Perhaps we need to change our nature through genetic engineering, technology has no boundaries. The question is which technology will advance faster, the technology that gives us the power to destroy ourselves, or the technology that prevents us from doing it.

 

The US and its massive arsenal of WMDs is not helping the 'prevention' of the technology but only speeding up the incentive towards destruction, we really need to rethink our long term strategy, get to the root cause why regimes are building up their arsenals and try to postpone this past as much as we can and in the meanwhile continuing our advancement in prevention.

[ronthepon]

What are the general reasons that countries are arming themselves with nuclear ammunition?

 

Is it because they feel invincible in a way, that we won't be attacked so easily now that we are a bomb brandishing country?

 

Or is it that one feels very insecure and totally defenceless in front of such a country?

 

When India had accuired the technology, it was allegedly so that they could be safe against Pakistan, from whom they felt insecure. It was so opposed at that time, and rightly so, in my opinion.

After all, even the US might have felt insecure then. Quite understandable.

 

The whole situation resembles the case where kids and adults get lethal guns. All want it, and in their opinion they feel they are very right, yet it cannot be so.