Some interesting theories from Gandalf.


freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 11:11am: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 9:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 11:12am: freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 9:30pm: Do you honestly think that threatening the US with nuclear weapons will make Un safer from US attack? Obviously. When was the last time the US attacked a nuclear armed nation? When was the last time the US attacked a weak and defenseless nation that had no deterrence capability? (ps, those are rhetorical questions again) Do you think the US interest in non-proliferation might mean that Un's development of nukes might cause, rather than prevent, an attack by the US? No. Obviously the US won't attack while ever there is a risk their territory will be nuked with retaliatory strikes. Thats the whole point. The US: "Stop developing nukes, otherwise we won't be able to attack you!" So nuclear non-proliferation is not even possible, because once a nation develops nukes, you cannot stop them developing nukes?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 3:07pm:

FD I don't even know what you are blathering about now. Nuclear non-proliferation is obviously not possible when the enforcers of non-proliferation go around telling everyone that no one has the right to nuclear weapons - except for them. Do you agree with this obvious premise? I don't believe you've ever said - despite this being the actual topic of the thread.

Gandalf initially couched this in terms of attacking America's "moral right" to prevent NK developing nukes, but eventually shifted to criticising it on more practical terms.

Pandoras box is a reality!

FD of course the issue of whether we need weapons that can annihilate life as we know it is a moral one.

By the way, you never even answered the question - even when you initiate an entirely new thread about it!:

How is non-proliferation possible when the enforcers of non-proliferation are armed to the hilt and unilaterally exempt themselves from disarming?

It's a nonsensical question Gandalf. You share Aussie's miscomprehension of what non-proliferation means.

it means to stop proliferating nuclear weapons. Very complicated I know, but I reckon I got it.

I am aware that disarming is not the same as non-proliferation, however my point is that enforcing non-proliferation is unworkable while ever nuclear weapons exist as some protected species for a select number of countries - some of whom also happen to be the self-appointed enforcers of non-proliferation.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 12:10pm:

it means to stop proliferating nuclear weapons. Very complicated I know, but I reckon I got it. I am aware that disarming is not the same as non-proliferation, however my point is that enforcing non-proliferation is unworkable while ever nuclear weapons exist as some protected species for a select number of countries - some of whom also happen to be the self-appointed enforcers of non-proliferation.

Who else is going to appoint them Gandalf? Your Imam?

You don't think its sensible for them to at least commit to disarming - before they trot around demanding no one else can have nukes?

Completely disarming would be a bad idea, because it would increase the upside, and hence incentive, for countries like NK to develop nukes. You have spent a long time trotting out the absurd argument that developing nukes makes NK less prone to attacks from the US. What do you think happens to that analysis if developing nukes makes NK the only country in the world that has them?

Once a technology like this is out of the bag, you can't put it back in. You would make yourself into the idiot that brings a knife to a gun fight.

That being said, the US and Russia are significantly decreasing the number of nuclear weapons:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/220px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:

Completely disarming would be a bad idea, because it would increase the upside, and hence incentive, for countries like NK to develop nukes. You have spent a long time trotting out the absurd argument that developing nukes makes NK less prone to attacks from the US. What do you think happens to that analysis if developing nukes makes NK the only country in the world that has them? Once a technology like this is out of the bag, you can't put it back in. You would make yourself into the idiot that brings a knife to a gun fight. That being said, the US and Russia are significantly decreasing the number of nuclear weapons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/220px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

They probably worked out that you don't need a shipload of warheads to wipe the World out.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:

Completely disarming would be a bad idea, because it would increase the upside, and hence incentive, for countries like NK to develop nukes.

I disagree. Countries like NK exist almost exclusively in a siege mentality. They play the victim both to the world and to their people. Thats basically how they maintain and frame their existence. Possessing nukes as an offensive weapon really doesn't make sense for them. It is far more 'natural' for them to have nukes only in the context of a perceived threat (or in the case of NK - an actual threat).

The other thing here is that tinpot countries like NK simply don't develop nukes by themselves. They can only do it with the help of other nuclear armed nations. Thus for NK to own nukes, it only happened because other nations - namely China and Russia deemed it in their strategic interests to help arm her. Why was that? de-nuclearising has as much to do with the superpowers agreeing on the inadvisability of arming tin-pot nations, as it is about convincing the Kim's of the world not to arm.


freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:

That being said, the US and Russia are significantly decreasing the number of nuclear weapons:

Thats true. Who needs 40 thousand planet destroying weapons when you can have a mere 5000?

And besides, you don't tell the full story - they are getting rid of the obsolete ones, and modernising the rest and making them more easily deployable.


freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:

Once a technology like this is out of the bag, you can't put it back in. You would make yourself into the idiot that brings a knife to a gun fight.

When we're literally talking about the survival of our species, I don't think we should just throw our hands up and resign ourselves to that answer. It may well be it will take actual deployment and for us to experience the horrors that come from it - to jolt us into real action - assuming of course we survive such deployment.

Gandalf, everything you say is logically inconsistent. The only thing that is consistent is that America is doing the wrong thing.


Quote:

I disagree. Countries like NK exist almost exclusively in a siege mentality. They play the victim both to the world and to their people. Thats basically how they maintain and frame their existence. Possessing nukes as an offensive weapon really doesn't make sense for them. It is far more 'natural' for them to have nukes only in the context of a perceived threat (or in the case of NK - an actual threat).

You did not actually address what you claim to disagree with. Here it is again:

Completely disarming would be a bad idea, because it would increase the upside, and hence incentive, for countries like NK to develop nukes.

Perhaps you think a siege mentality only exists if America has nukes, but if you think about it for more than a few seconds you will realise that America and every other country would be threatening NK a great deal more if no-one else had nukes and they suspected NK of developing them.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2018 at 6:47pm:

You did not actually address what you claim to disagree with. Here it is again: Completely disarming would be a bad idea, because it would increase the upside, and hence incentive, for countries like NK to develop nukes.

I addressed it directly. Furthermore, you pretty much refute your own claim in your last sentence:

America and every other country would be threatening NK a great deal more if no-one else had nukes and they suspected NK of developing them.

Exactly where is the 'upside' and 'incentive' for NK to develop nukes if everyone is united in threatening her to stop? Presumably China would be included in your 'every other country' - which is certainly not the case now, and indeed China is basically the only reason NK is able to build them.

You also ignored my second point - that the NKs of the world are incapable of building nukes by themselves. So in a nuclear free world, who is going to help them? "Non-disarmament" not only gives the NKs of the world the motivation to arm, it more importantly gives them the capability - via supplying them with materials etc - to build nukes.

So according to you, America threatening to invade NK in the real world if they develop nukes does not work, but in a completely disarmed world it would work?

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2018 at 6:51pm:

So according to you, America threatening to invade NK in the real world if they develop nukes does not work,

Not only that, I can prove it didn't work - America threatened NK with invasion (after actually invading) - for over 60 years - lo and behold NK developed nukes.


freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2018 at 6:51pm:

but in a completely disarmed world it would work?

Completely disarmed eh? Gosh your right FD, that certainly would be a challenge. Perhaps they could use rocks and sticks?

If I didn't think the Trump administration were a bunch of cretinous low-brows, I would think they are purposely trying to goad NK into abandoning the summit.

First, it was the God-bothering Vice President who said publicly that NK could end up like Lybia. And now Giulliani is saying that Kim begged on his hands and knees for the summit to be resumed.

If it does go ahead, look for more of this stupidity.