a new nucleaur policy

PeakOutput

i apologise if this is the wrong forum but i think it suits

i want to point out that im not saying we should implement the idea below im just asking what would be the pros(if any) and the cons of such a system

so as i was listening to discussion on the trident defense programme in britain i had an idea

what if, in the absence of complete nuclear disarmament, the current missiles were distributed one to each member of the eu(just talking about the eu right now but lets assume it could in theory be applied to every nation in the world)

every country gets one and the rest get destroyed

in return for getting one they all sign some sort of agreement that if any nation (form within or outside) the eu attacks an eu nation with nukes or large large wmd's then every nation will strike back with their one single nuke(one at a time obviously until the aggressor ceases attacking). the second part of the agreement would be that if any eu state uses a nuclear weapon first then the other member states retaliate against them with theirs.

now obviously this is very simplistic but im just looking for peoples views on why couldnt it work?

Iwasfrozen

And what if the E.U one day breaks up ?

cm2000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHEJtflcmo

ChocolateSauce

The odds of nuclear war has little to do with the number of warheads, and everything to do with the number of agents with the ability to use them. If the US had a million nukes and no one else did, the odds of nuclear war would be far smaller than if 180 nukes were distributed equally between 180 countries.

This is why it is justified for the international community to use any means necessary to stop new nuclear powers from emerging.

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is why it is justified for the international community to use any means necessary to stop new nuclear powers from emerging.

Any means necessary ?

anymore

What sane person would give Irish Politicians any control over a nuclear weapon ?

As it happens a number of 'Non Nuclear' European countries do actually have possession and control over tactical nuclear missiles which are stored at thier air bases - the Times magazine, I think had a brief article on it earlier this year.

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Any means necessary ?

Including war. Although I don't think this will be necessary; even if negotiations and sanctions failed, a precision strike could probably take out nuclear weapons facilities. Of course I'd sooner advocate a cuba-style embargo than war, but nukes in the hands of government like the one ruling Iran is a nightmare situation- you're giving weapons of mass destruction to religious fanatics who want to see Israel "wiped of the face of the earth".

Overheal

This is frankly a ridiculous idea. The countries that HAve nuclear weapons can barely be trusted with them. And you want everyone to get one?

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

This is frankly a ridiculous idea. The countries that HAve nuclear weapons can barely be trusted with them. And you want everyone to get one?

i didnt say i wanted it to happen in fact i specifically said thats not what i was saying

and the point about the eu breaking up well why wouldnt the agreement still stand?

it would mean that military might was suddenly taken out of the equation for any decision as everyone is effectively on an equal footing, if it was world wide then america or russia are suddenly on a equaly footing with everyone else so there is no more bullying tactics(now im not advocating countries like iran getting given one)

again im not saying its not a ridicolous idea jsut want to provoke a bit of debate i guess

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Including war. Although I don't think this will be necessary; even if negotiations and sanctions failed, a precision strike could probably take out nuclear weapons facilities. Of course I'd sooner advocate a cuba-style embargo than war, but nukes in the hands of government like the one ruling Iran is a nightmare situation- you're giving weapons of mass destruction to religious fanatics who want to see Israel "wiped of the face of the earth".

So you think we should go to war with a country that may have nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear war ?

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you think we should go to war with a country that may have nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear war ?

No, once they have them it's a different situation. I think that if we know a country is certain to very soon develop weapon capability, and all other avenues have failed, we should use force as a final resort to prevent them acquiring them.

Criteria must include a certainty that if no action is taken, weapons will be acquired, and that all other avenues have been exhausted. Also, to justify a full on war, precision strikes must have been ruled out as viable, or have already failed.

Rather then incredulously try to point out a flaw in my logic, why don't you state why you think this is a bad idea? I'm open to suggestions.

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Rather then incredulously try to point out a flaw in my logic, why don't you state why you think this is a bad idea? I'm open to suggestions.

Well I tought pointing out flaws in your logic was stating why it was bad but anyway.

What if the nuclear facility is situated in an urban area such as a city ? A percision strike that you are typing about would kill thousands of innocent people, are you ok with that ?

What if when attacked the rouge nation decides to cut its loses and attack the nearest foreign capital city within range of its nuclear weapons. Should the Americans who would inevitably spearhead such a percision strike take responsibility in such case ?

What if the information America had was wrong and the country they invaded had no such weapons of mass destruction (sound familier ?). Thousands of people would be killed and an entire country economically devestated because someone didn't check their facts before attacking. That is what one would call "not fair".

Also forsaking all of the above, why should a country such as Iran or North Korea not be allowed nuclear weapons to protect themselves ? There is no evidence to show that these nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to world security. Indeed America is far more agressive then N. Korea.

Kiwi_knock

Who decides which EU will fire the first missile if they are under attack. What happens if a country opts out of the EU. Your scenario does even work in fantasy land, none of it seems plausible. While it would be nice that every EU country had the same nuclear protection it will never happen because most citizens do not want nuclear protection.

PeakOutput

so anyone have any other ideas?

astrofool

PeakOutput wrote: »

so anyone have any other ideas?

Stop more countries developing material into weapons. Reduce the stockpiles we currently have to the minimum for a country to have a valid deterrent, where they already possess nukes.

Nukes have, in effect, given us 60 years of relative peace. That peace was obtained with only two of the smallest warheads (in todays terms) being used. To get rid of them completely would be foolish, some people need a stick aimed in their direction to stop them striking out.

PeakOutput

astrofool wrote: »

Stop more countries developing material into weapons. Reduce the stockpiles we currently have to the minimum for a country to have a valid deterrent, where they already possess nukes.

Nukes have, in effect, given us 60 years of relative peace. That peace was obtained with only two of the smallest warheads (in todays terms) being used. To get rid of them completely would be foolish, some people need a stick aimed in their direction to stop them striking out.

ok i agree with most of that but do you not think that any countries having nuclear weapons is the only incentive needed for these fringe countries like iran and north korea to pursue their own programmes?

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well I tought pointing out flaws in your logic was stating why it was bad but anyway.

What if the nuclear facility is situated in an urban area such as a city ? A percision strike that you are typing about would kill thousands of innocent people, are you ok with that ?

I did say a precision strike could be ruled out, I didn't say it had to happen.

What if when attacked the rouge nation decides to cut its loses and attack the nearest foreign capital city within range of its nuclear weapons. Should the Americans who would inevitably spearhead such a percision strike take responsibility in such case ?

I don't think you actually listened to what I said. One more time: The actions I advocated were reserved for a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons, but is about to acquire them.

What if the information America had was wrong and the country they invaded had no such weapons of mass destruction (sound familier ?). Thousands of people would be killed and an entire country economically devestated because someone didn't check their facts before attacking. That is what one would call "not fair".

More evidence you didn't actually read my post. I'd ignore this, but just to save time later down the line I'll one, final time, clearly state something I stated already:

me wrote:

Criteria must include a certainty that if no action is taken, weapons will be acquired

Obviously Iraq was a catastrophe; Bush lied about the motive for the war and went in despite the fact the UN Nuclear Watchdog said there wasn't evidence. I'd want there to be an international consensus before such an action is taken.

Also forsaking all of the above, why should a country such as Iran or North Korea not be allowed nuclear weapons to protect themselves ? There is no evidence to show that these nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to world security. Indeed America is far more agressive then N. Korea.

Because countries ruled by totalitarian despots and fundamentalists shouldn't be allowed to have the power to murder millions of people. Nuclear weapons should not be spreading, they should be in decline and retreat. And they are, although I admit not fast enough. Hopefully the world will be nuclear free in my lifetime.

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I did say a precision strike could be ruled out, I didn't say it had to happen.

So how else would you attack them ? By an invasion ? That would take too long and the country in question could attack in the mean time.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think you actually listened to what I said. One more time: The actions I advocated were reserved for a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons, but is about to acquire them.

You right. I didn't listen to what you said. It's kind of hard to on an internet forum.

Anyway, a country that has 99% of the research for nuclear weapons complete will finish them quite fast when they discover an internatonal strike team is mobilising against them. (which they inevitably will.)

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

More evidence you didn't actually read my post. I'd ignore this, but just to save time later down the line I'll one, final time, clearly state something I stated already:

Obviously Iraq was a catastrophe; Bush lied about the motive for the war and went in despite the fact the UN Nuclear Watchdog said there wasn't evidence. I'd want there to be an international consensus before such an action is taken.

Evidence is just that evidence. Something is not always true just because the evidence points to it. History is full of people wrongly sent to jail for a crime they didn't commit.

Even this is taking the innocent world view that evidence against countries cannot be fabricated as an excuse to prepare an invasion.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Because countries ruled by totalitarian despots and fundamentalists shouldn't be allowed to have the power to murder millions of people. Nuclear weapons should not be spreading, they should be in decline and retreat. And they are, although I admit not fast enough. Hopefully the world will be nuclear free in my lifetime.

Countries ruled by totalitarian despots are still home to millions of people. People who have as much right to life as an American of European.

Also there is no evidence that these countries are a threat to world security with or with out nuclear weapons.