UN Secretary-General: A worrisome new nuclear arms race is brewing. Any use of a nuclear weapon — anytime, anywhere and in any context — would unleash a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.
Will quite literally never happen. Any country with half a brain has seen what happens to countries without nukes - they get invaded. Play it out logically. Every country agrees to get rid of...
Will quite literally never happen.
Any country with half a brain has seen what happens to countries without nukes - they get invaded.
Play it out logically. Every country agrees to get rid of nuclear weapons. Now, any countries acting in good faith have gotten rid of their nukes while the bad actors run secret nuclear weapons programs and gain a trump card over everyone else.
I think we need to keep building bridges and work as cooperatively as possible with other countries. We should be making allies wherever we can. Keep making it so countries have more to lose by using nukes than they would ever gain. Unfortunately, part of this is keeping up with the arms race. Equally matched nuclear countries who disagree have to resort to other, less deadly types of competition.
I also think it would be wise to work on wealth inequality on a global scale. People on the whole are less likely to join militias and use dirty bombs if they're fed, happily employed, and have a nice family and/or some hobbies.
I think the big fear is always going to be that China or Russia (or maybe the US in some future time period) is going to do some imperialist bullshit that's going to start a war. Again, I think this is less likely if a country is secure in its power and position. Especially if the people are pretty happy on the individual level with their lives. Happy and well-fed people tend to start caring about the value of other human lives.
I'm going to provide this as further reading: Prisoner's dilemma It shows why, despite disarmament being the rational choice for the collective good of humanity, it is not rational at a state...
It shows why, despite disarmament being the rational choice for the collective good of humanity, it is not rational at a state level. The risks are too high.
I don't think history supports the notion that countries will never voluntarily reduce their nuclear or even non-nuclear stockpiles. We've had disarmament treaties and we will, hopefully, continue...
I don't think history supports the notion that countries will never voluntarily reduce their nuclear or even non-nuclear stockpiles. We've had disarmament treaties and we will, hopefully, continue to have them.
Disarmement treaties have reduced stockpiles, but the only country that eliminated their stockpile entirely was ukraine. Look how well thats going for them.
Disarmement treaties have reduced stockpiles, but the only country that eliminated their stockpile entirely was ukraine. Look how well thats going for them.
The only country to eliminate a stockpile they created was South Africa. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine eliminated the stockpiles they inherited from the Soviet Union.
The only country to eliminate a stockpile they created was South Africa. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine eliminated the stockpiles they inherited from the Soviet Union.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Read on... The real only way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them...
UN Secretary-General António Guterres
on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
The world has spent too long under the shadow of nuclear weapons. Let’s step back from the edge of disaster. Let’s usher in a new era of peace for all people. Let’s make history by consigning nuclear weapons to history.
Read on...
The real only way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them
This is not hyperbole. This is the timeless message of the hibakusha — the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To them — and to the world — I have pledged to do everything within my power to gather countries around the need to wipe these devices of destruction off the face of the earth.
This is a matter of urgency
A worrisome new arms race is brewing. The number of nuclear weapons could rise for the first time in decades. Hard-won norms to prevent their use, spread and testing are being undermined. The global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture is eroding. Nuclear arsenals are being modernized to make these weapons faster, more accurate and stealthier. Nuclear sabres are again being rattled.
This is madness. We must reverse course.
Nuclear-weapon States must lead the way
I call on them to meet their disarmament obligations, and commit to never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. We need to reinforce and re-commit to the nuclear-disarmament-and-non-proliferation regime built over the decades.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Though not yet in force, it remains a powerful testament of humanity’s will to lift the shadow of nuclear annihilation from our world, once and for all. In the name of all victims of nuclear testing, I call on all countries that have not yet ratified the Treaty to do so without delay, and for those States that possess nuclear weapons to ensure a moratorium on all nuclear testing.
We must redeploy the timeless tools of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation to ease tensions and end the nuclear threat
This dialogue must extend to all categories of nuclear weapons, and it must address the increasing interplay between strategic and conventional weapons and ...
...the nexus between nuclear weapons and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
Humans must always be in control of and responsible for any decision to use nuclear weapons.
Diplomatically challenging, sure, but not unrealistic. The number of nuclear weapons in existence has steadily decreased since 1985: today's arsenal is 20% the size it once was. In general, most...
Diplomatically challenging, sure, but not unrealistic. The number of nuclear weapons in existence has steadily decreased since 1985: today's arsenal is 20% the size it once was. In general, most historians would agree that the world has been orienting itself less around military for centuries. "Those in power" do not exist in a vacuum, even in non-democratic places, and can be influenced by constituents and foreign governments. As with anything political, it's prudent not to be apathetic about disarmament. Doing so creates a perception that it's impossible; and that perception, which is probably false, is what ultimately informs many policy decisions.
Its incredibly unrealistic. Looking at the total number of nukes isn't super meaningful, given the power and reliability of modern weapons, the ability for countries like the USA and China to...
Its incredibly unrealistic. Looking at the total number of nukes isn't super meaningful, given the power and reliability of modern weapons, the ability for countries like the USA and China to conduct a counter-value strike (polite word for glassing cities) remains present even without the massive stockpiles of the cold war.
These nukes will remain until they are unnecessary, so lets look at what objectives having nuclear weapons achieves. For Russia, the benefit is obvious, without Russia's nuclear arsenal they would have been invaded by now. Their nukes are very obviously the only thing keeping the current state of Russia in existence. For India and Pakistan, the nukes ensure the current borders around Kashmir. If you removed nukes from one side the other would have an immediate advantage, and if you removed nukes from both then India's larger conventional military would dominate. So neither side will be willing to disarm until they can agree on their borders. If you look at China, they would like to take Taiwan at some point, and without nuclear weapons such a project would be utterly impossible. It might still be impossible, but nuclear weapons gives them a chance. The USA would very much not like China to annex Taiwan, or anything else for that matter, and again nuclear weapons are necessary to achieve this goal. Again, because of the imbalance in conventional forces, a mutual disarmament would be unfavorable to China and thus is unlikely to ever occur.
If you create a world where nuclear weapons are not necessary to achieve vital foreign policy objectives, then that is a world where total nuclear disarmament can occur. But that is the only way.
Haven't they also gotten more powerful? And the ability to deliver them more advanced? While the total amount of them may be reduced, is the effective amount of damage that could be done by the...
Haven't they also gotten more powerful? And the ability to deliver them more advanced? While the total amount of them may be reduced, is the effective amount of damage that could be done by the remainder not just as capable?
They're becoming smaller and smaller in yield as with the improvements in accuracy of delivery vehicles, a multi-megaton warhead is only useful as a city-killer. The largest deployed warhead...
They're becoming smaller and smaller in yield as with the improvements in accuracy of delivery vehicles, a multi-megaton warhead is only useful as a city-killer. The largest deployed warhead currently iirc is china's 4500kt DF-5A ICBM.
They’ve become more highly optimized. Major nuclear weapon states have settled on midrange yield (100-500 kt) with high accuracy, enabling precise strikes on military targets (e.g., shipyards,...
They’ve become more highly optimized. Major nuclear weapon states have settled on midrange yield (100-500 kt) with high accuracy, enabling precise strikes on military targets (e.g., shipyards, command centers, missile silos) without having to destroy a whole metropolitan area in the process. That’s not to say there wouldn’t be collateral damage, but it wouldn’t be like the multimegaton H-bombs of the 1950s and 60s.
Not to mention that if a city killer is needed, its more efficient to have a mirv target several points spread out across a metro area as opposed to a single big one in the city center.
Not to mention that if a city killer is needed, its more efficient to have a mirv target several points spread out across a metro area as opposed to a single big one in the city center.
And considering that nuclear weapons are both the ultimate trump card as well as the catalyst to an arms race to build the perfect sword of Damocles, it would be almost paradoxical to think of a...
And considering that nuclear weapons are both the ultimate trump card as well as the catalyst to an arms race to build the perfect sword of Damocles, it would be almost paradoxical to think of a world with nuclear energy without weaponized forms of that knowledge.
I don't even know that it's fair to simplify it as solely about power for the sake of power. They haven't been used in warfare in nearly 80 years. That isn't to say there isn't power in having...
I don't even know that it's fair to simplify it as solely about power for the sake of power. They haven't been used in warfare in nearly 80 years. That isn't to say there isn't power in having them, but the fact that they aren't being used is indication that their power has a ceiling in holding them but not using them. The moment you use them, their power could be your own demise.
Unless you can resolutely prevent others from making them, giving them up yourself is not necessarily noble and holding onto them isn't necessarily a power trip.
It's a very idealistic take with no consequence to make the statement and a very different consequence to carry out in action.
Will quite literally never happen.
Any country with half a brain has seen what happens to countries without nukes - they get invaded.
Play it out logically. Every country agrees to get rid of nuclear weapons. Now, any countries acting in good faith have gotten rid of their nukes while the bad actors run secret nuclear weapons programs and gain a trump card over everyone else.
I think we need to keep building bridges and work as cooperatively as possible with other countries. We should be making allies wherever we can. Keep making it so countries have more to lose by using nukes than they would ever gain. Unfortunately, part of this is keeping up with the arms race. Equally matched nuclear countries who disagree have to resort to other, less deadly types of competition.
I also think it would be wise to work on wealth inequality on a global scale. People on the whole are less likely to join militias and use dirty bombs if they're fed, happily employed, and have a nice family and/or some hobbies.
I think the big fear is always going to be that China or Russia (or maybe the US in some future time period) is going to do some imperialist bullshit that's going to start a war. Again, I think this is less likely if a country is secure in its power and position. Especially if the people are pretty happy on the individual level with their lives. Happy and well-fed people tend to start caring about the value of other human lives.
I'm going to provide this as further reading: Prisoner's dilemma
It shows why, despite disarmament being the rational choice for the collective good of humanity, it is not rational at a state level. The risks are too high.
I don't think history supports the notion that countries will never voluntarily reduce their nuclear or even non-nuclear stockpiles. We've had disarmament treaties and we will, hopefully, continue to have them.
Disarmement treaties have reduced stockpiles, but the only country that eliminated their stockpile entirely was ukraine. Look how well thats going for them.
The only country to eliminate a stockpile they created was South Africa. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine eliminated the stockpiles they inherited from the Soviet Union.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres
on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Read on...
It's a noble pursuit, but I have my doubts it will ever happen. When people have power, they're always apprehensive to give it up.
Diplomatically challenging, sure, but not unrealistic. The number of nuclear weapons in existence has steadily decreased since 1985: today's arsenal is 20% the size it once was. In general, most historians would agree that the world has been orienting itself less around military for centuries. "Those in power" do not exist in a vacuum, even in non-democratic places, and can be influenced by constituents and foreign governments. As with anything political, it's prudent not to be apathetic about disarmament. Doing so creates a perception that it's impossible; and that perception, which is probably false, is what ultimately informs many policy decisions.
Its incredibly unrealistic. Looking at the total number of nukes isn't super meaningful, given the power and reliability of modern weapons, the ability for countries like the USA and China to conduct a counter-value strike (polite word for glassing cities) remains present even without the massive stockpiles of the cold war.
These nukes will remain until they are unnecessary, so lets look at what objectives having nuclear weapons achieves. For Russia, the benefit is obvious, without Russia's nuclear arsenal they would have been invaded by now. Their nukes are very obviously the only thing keeping the current state of Russia in existence. For India and Pakistan, the nukes ensure the current borders around Kashmir. If you removed nukes from one side the other would have an immediate advantage, and if you removed nukes from both then India's larger conventional military would dominate. So neither side will be willing to disarm until they can agree on their borders. If you look at China, they would like to take Taiwan at some point, and without nuclear weapons such a project would be utterly impossible. It might still be impossible, but nuclear weapons gives them a chance. The USA would very much not like China to annex Taiwan, or anything else for that matter, and again nuclear weapons are necessary to achieve this goal. Again, because of the imbalance in conventional forces, a mutual disarmament would be unfavorable to China and thus is unlikely to ever occur.
If you create a world where nuclear weapons are not necessary to achieve vital foreign policy objectives, then that is a world where total nuclear disarmament can occur. But that is the only way.
Haven't they also gotten more powerful? And the ability to deliver them more advanced? While the total amount of them may be reduced, is the effective amount of damage that could be done by the remainder not just as capable?
They're becoming smaller and smaller in yield as with the improvements in accuracy of delivery vehicles, a multi-megaton warhead is only useful as a city-killer. The largest deployed warhead currently iirc is china's 4500kt DF-5A ICBM.
They’ve become more highly optimized. Major nuclear weapon states have settled on midrange yield (100-500 kt) with high accuracy, enabling precise strikes on military targets (e.g., shipyards, command centers, missile silos) without having to destroy a whole metropolitan area in the process. That’s not to say there wouldn’t be collateral damage, but it wouldn’t be like the multimegaton H-bombs of the 1950s and 60s.
Not to mention that if a city killer is needed, its more efficient to have a mirv target several points spread out across a metro area as opposed to a single big one in the city center.
And considering that nuclear weapons are both the ultimate trump card as well as the catalyst to an arms race to build the perfect sword of Damocles, it would be almost paradoxical to think of a world with nuclear energy without weaponized forms of that knowledge.
I don't even know that it's fair to simplify it as solely about power for the sake of power. They haven't been used in warfare in nearly 80 years. That isn't to say there isn't power in having them, but the fact that they aren't being used is indication that their power has a ceiling in holding them but not using them. The moment you use them, their power could be your own demise.
Unless you can resolutely prevent others from making them, giving them up yourself is not necessarily noble and holding onto them isn't necessarily a power trip.
It's a very idealistic take with no consequence to make the statement and a very different consequence to carry out in action.