tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post4869547411040329978..comments2024-03-26T07:51:43.186+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Nuclear Deterrence and LogicDocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-3671672093275385962021-09-02T13:19:32.896+01:002021-09-02T13:19:32.896+01:00Unknown wrongly t I am advocating unilateral nucle...Unknown wrongly t I am advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am not. <br /><br />Unknown also challenges the idea that the nuclear arsenals form a system. Here he is contradicted by deterrence theory, which is built on the notion that no-one will use nuclear weapons because other actors in the system will use them on us.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16815923540830609285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-25286607218710720842021-09-02T13:15:10.106+01:002021-09-02T13:15:10.106+01:00My link to William MacNeilly’s dossier has been re...My link to William MacNeilly’s dossier has been removed. Here is a link to William MacNeilly’s story https://wikispooks.com/wiki/William_McNeilly#ArrestDocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16815923540830609285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-62235777136964150572013-10-21T10:53:31.436+01:002013-10-21T10:53:31.436+01:00Hi Philip, thanks for commenting.
I may have expre...Hi Philip, thanks for commenting.<br />I may have expressed it clumsily, or you may have slightly misread what I wrote, but the point stands, that the risk of losing one's arsenal to a nuclear does put the whole thing on a hair trigger basis. The thinking tends to be all-or-nothing. <br /><br />We have to try to imagine the state of mind do a War Cabinet in a situation where they are coming to terms that nuclear weapons have actually been used. Fear/panic, dissociation: a gamut of emotions will perturb the rationality of the group. The point I am making is that it is impossible to argue with any confidence that restraint will prevail, and that one or two nukes could be fired, and then that everything will settle down. <br /><br />As to South Africa, it could be argued that in the opposite case, if South Africa had gone ahead, proliferation might be far worse than is now the case.<br /><br />Please note that nowhere in this piece have I called for unilateral nuclear disarmament. That particular debate has been debated ad nauseam in the 70s and is a blind alley as far as debate goes.<br /><br />We need global nuclear disarmament, and that requires nuclear states to negotiate in good faith, as required by the non-proliferation treaty. They have not been negotiating in good faith, and it is our duty as citizens to point this fact out to all the world.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-35154658787916643112013-10-21T09:18:40.298+01:002013-10-21T09:18:40.298+01:00Interesting. Though your use of 'first strike&...Interesting. Though your use of 'first strike' is faulty. First strike is that pre-emptive strike designed to disable/destroy the opponents nuclear arsenal, not the response to a perceived or actual first use of a nuclear weapon by (presumably) the 'other side'.<br /><br />How many countries gave up their nuclear weapons or decided not to develop them because South Africa gave up its programme? While general disarmament is an excellent goal, unilateral disarmament without securing some quid pro quo from others is useless. In any negotiation never offer something without expecting, demanding and receiving something in return.Philip C Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506199502085466202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-9162670736325798192010-05-16T15:05:41.820+01:002010-05-16T15:05:41.820+01:00Thanks, SCE.
Nikhil, you cannot deny that nuclear ...Thanks, SCE.<br />Nikhil, you cannot deny that nuclear "deterrence" is a system. We have nukes because they have nukes, and they have nukes because we have nukes. We will not use them, because they would use them. It is a system.<br />The system built itself up on reciprocity. Conversely, the system can be dismantled on the same reciprocity. Indeed, that is what has been happening - with Start in the 80s, and the more recent further reduction.<br /><br />It will take more than Nikhil being "pretty confident" that our leaders would not turn the key for us to learn to love the Bomb. The confidence has to be absolute. It is not. Therefore we must rid ourselves of a system composed these insane devices.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-13469519051721637272010-05-15T12:02:56.183+01:002010-05-15T12:02:56.183+01:00@Nikhil
If having nukes and not having nukes leav...@Nikhil<br /><br />If having nukes and not having nukes leaves us exposed to the same risk of destruction of civilisation, then what is logical purpose of nukes? The ability to sow destruction across the world at massive cost to the tax payer?<br /><br />The idea of first strike prevention is irrelevant given that such a large proportion of nukes are submarine/air based, and therefore immune to such action. <br /><br />This leads to the conclusion that nukes are only a weapon of revenge. Meaning once inconceivable death and damage has been inflicted upon a victim, they then have the ability to wreak similar death and destruction back.<br /><br />However this concludes in the absurd circular argument that nukes should be produced to make the consequences of their use too dire to use them in the first place...<br /><br />I think in the 21st century we should all realise that actions in one country have global consequences. Thus reduction/abolition of nuclear weapons in one place will help the cause of nuclear reduction elsewhere. This can only be good given that the 'infinitely' destructive consequences of their use would become slightly less 'infinite' given less nukes.Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18322214359848739939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-53126516058628765632010-04-23T17:55:22.222+01:002010-04-23T17:55:22.222+01:00No, nuclear deterrence is not illogical at all act...No, nuclear deterrence is not illogical at all actually.<br /><br />If not having nuclear weapons leaves us exposed to a risk that would be infinitely destructive of our civilisation (i.e. an enemy using nukes against us), then we should only abandon our nuclear weapons if the risk of that occurring is zero. <br /><br />It isn't zero, so we shouldn't abandon the Trident system. <br /><br />The flaw in your reasoning comes when you collate our weapons and our country into part of a 'system' of international parties. You cannot answer how Britain scrapping nukes in any way reduces the risk of nuclear war involving Britain. <br /><br />This is particularly true if you are arguing, as you seem to be, that all-out nuclear holocaust is likely as a result of a mistake (Dr Strangelove style). I am pretty confident that the people with their fingers on the buttons are not nearly as likely to destroy the earth as you say. Whether because of Group Think - the person with ultimate authority is the PM, who, out of touch as he is, isn't THAT out of touch; or because of 'anger' - in 60 years of nuclear weapons, they have never actually been used because some Navy Captain was pissed off about something.<br /><br />If your claim is that the whole world should just drop the whole idea of nuclear weapons, then sure... but what are you going to do? Dis-invent the technology? This certainly isn't a case in any sense for unilateral nuclear disarmament.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13049364730186342957noreply@blogger.com