Pandoras box is a reality!

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

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


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

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:

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


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:


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:


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.

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


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.

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


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:


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