Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

[arthwollipot]

Japan is often described as a "one twist of the screwdiver" away from being a major nuclear power, same thing with Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, and yes, Iran.

Australia not so much. We have had a very long standing policy (recently chucked in the bin by a certain former PM) of permitting nothing nuclear in the country. We have only one fission reactor, for research purposes, and no nuclear powered ships. It's only reluctantly that we permitted American nuclear powered vessels in our ports, and mostly because we're America's lapdog and allow America to do whatever it likes.

No, we aren't a screwdriver twist away from being a nuclear power. We're pretty far from that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Australia not so much. We have had a very long standing policy (recently chucked in the bin by a certain former PM) of permitting nothing nuclear in the country. We have only one fission reactor, for research purposes, and no nuclear powered ships. It's only reluctantly that we permitted American nuclear powered vessels in our ports, and mostly because we're America's lapdog and allow America to do whatever it likes.

No, we aren't a screwdriver twist away from being a nuclear power. We're pretty far from that.

Suuuuuuuuure. *wink*

 

[dudalb]

Kim Jong Un just rattled his nuke saber at the South again. That used to concern me. Now I just see it as crying wolf.

TIme to watch Americs World Police again.

 

[dudalb]

From what I have read, Japan could become a Nuclear power very quickly if it so decided.

 

[dudalb]

Australia not so much. We have had a very long standing policy (recently chucked in the bin by a certain former PM) of permitting nothing nuclear in the country. We have only one fission reactor, for research purposes, and no nuclear powered ships. It's only reluctantly that we permitted American nuclear powered vessels in our ports, and mostly because we're America's lapdog and allow America to do whatever it likes.

No, we aren't a screwdriver twist away from being a nuclear power. We're pretty far from that.

THat's the price you pay for protection against China, frankly.

 

[dudalb]

And there is always the chance of some nutjob terroirst gang mananging to get ahold of a small nuclerar warhead.
They made a pretty good thriller abou that in the 90' called 'Peacemaker" with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman.

 

[Roboramma]

Certainly I dispute the factual nature of the claim. It's a half-truth. Which is another way of saying it's a half-lie.

If you are disputing the factual nature of the claim, then you are saying that there is another nation which has both had nuclear weapons and not used them for longer than the US. Which nation is that? How long?

The good thing about facts is that they are pretty simple.

Interpreting facts can be complex. It's entirely reasonable to say "the fact that the US has both had nuclear weapons and not used them for longer than any other nation is much less meaningful than the fact that they are the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons". In fact, a few other posters in the thread did just that.

We can argue what conclusions we should draw from the facts. But first we have to be able to actually engage with the facts as they are. Your argument is that because the clearly correct fact that theprestige pointed out could be used to argue for a conclusion that you disagree with, that fact is false.

But one might just say that straight on, instead of presenting in those terms, and trying to pretend that H&N did not happen, or that they don't count, because they do.

At no point did he pretend that Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen or don't count. His statement was very clearly about what happened after those bombs were dropped, and certainly didn't claim that they weren't dropped.

I mean, that would be a pretty stupid thing to claim. It'd be like claiming that the US is the most stable nuclear power because they've had nuclear weapons for 1000 years and never used them. Everyone knows that's false. Everyone knows that the US used nuclear weapons in WWII. Of course he's not claiming that they didn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Atomic weapons have been used exactly twice, to end the largest conflict the world has ever seen, and haven't been used again for decades.

That doesn't make them good, it doesn't make the bombings morally right (discussion for another day) or anything like that but it means SOMETHING. We didn't invent nukes and then just start slinging them over every petty reason.

Things like cold war paranoia were bad, but the fact that that concept was a thing for so long sorta does show nobody is looking for the first excuse to use one of those things again.

Again does this mean we should lapse into a naive "Well nobody is going to be crazy/ballsy/scared enough to ever use them, we can stop worrying?" No but again it does mean SOMETHING valid I think.

 

[arthwollipot]

THat's the price you pay for protection against China, frankly.

Lol that's funny.

 

[Chanakya]

Oh, why? I mean: why is that funny?

(Sorry to butt in, but happened to see that exchange, didn't get the context, and thought I'd just ask!)

 

[Chanakya]

Are you actually disputing the factual nature of thepretige's claim? The period in which the US has possessed nuclear weapons and not used them is longer than that for any other nation. Whether or not you find this fact meaningful is a separate question from whether or not its accurate.

Want to test its accuracy? Just ask, how long is that period for the US? It stretches from just after the bombs were dropped in 1945 to today, so ~79 years.

Is there another nation that has both possessed nuclear weapons and not used them for more than 79 years?



Yes, this is also a fact. Both are true. It's up to you to determine the meaning of those facts.

This is just arguing for the sake of arguing. The US is only country that used nukes. The US is also the country that possessed nukes for a remarkably short time before using it. So that to bring up the incidental fact that it is also the country that's gone longest after that without using nukes is ...not utterly urrelevant, but it telegraphs an argument that's fundamentally disingenuous: given that unlike post-WW2 Germany and post-WW2 Japan, the US hasn't reformed, and the only reason no nukes were used thereafter is because there has never been any need to. (It's nevertheless the most stable of the really major nuclear powers, though, like I've said already.)

I was pointing out the obvious flaw in that argument.

To answer the weird question that you keep asking me ---- weird, because the answer's so obvious that I'm surprised you're even asking, and also weird because the factuality is not as cut and dried as you imply: this question: Is it a fact the US owned nukes longest without using them? It's not honest to simply say Yes; and it is dishonest rendering of the actual picture to simply say No.

The fact is the US has possessed nukes for a very remarkably short time before deploying them, and not just once, so the answer is a No. On the other hand, yes, absolutely, after that the US has not used nukes, obviously; and it's had nukes longer than Russia, the UK, or France ---- so the answer is Yes; but even so, even in that limited sense only a technical Yes, because Russia got its nukes very soon after that.

So that, to give you the answer you keep on insisting I furnish: It is disingenuous, even if not technically a lie, to answer that question with a Yes. The honest answer is both Yes and No, with a brief sentence in explanation --- particularly given the fact that the weight of the Yes-it-is-country-that's-longest-without-using-nukes part of the answer is far lighter than the weight of the No-and-on-the-contrary-it's-gone-for-a-crazy-short-time-before-immediately-using-its-nukes part of the answer. (Because Russia got its nukes very soon after, and so have possessed nukes just as long, for all practical purposes; while the US is emphatically the only country, ever, to nuke another.)

Like I said originally, the only way that statement is actually true if there's some difference being implied between "nuclear" and "atomic", or something like that.


----------

TLDR:
The only honest answer to the question is both Yes and No, with a brief sentence in explanation.

To either answer with just a Yes, or to answer with just a No, would definitely be disingenuous, even if technically neither is a lie. As a matter of factuality not of interpretation.

(If you really want to frame your question in such a way that Yes becomes the only answer ---- as you've been trying hard to do, I can't quite fathom why ---- then instead of focusing on factuality you should focus on technicality. If you really badly want me to answer you with a Yes, then instead of keeping on asking me, "Is it factually true that da-duh-dum?", you should, instead, switch your question to "Is it technically true that da-duh-dum?")


----------

eta again:
Come to think of it, even if you phrase the question like that, with the focus on technicality, even so you are not guaranteed a Yes answer. I can still answer No, and be technically just as correct.

So, the only way you can phrase that question you keep asking me repeatedly, so as to be assured of the Yes answer (that for some reason you seem to be after) would be to put it this way: "Is it technically a lie that the US has owned nukes the longest time without deploying them?" Ask me that, and yes, you'll then be assured of a "No" answer, which you can turn around into a Yes by reversing the construct of the sentence.

So cool: ask me that next time, if you like: and I'll answer with a No, and then you can legit turn it around to a Yes, and go away happy.

 

[Roboramma]

This is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The opposite actually. You are claiming that a true thing is false. I find that completely abhorrent. I don't actually care that much about what conclusions you want to draw from individual facts, but I think it's extremely important that we be able to see the facts clearly.

You are uncomfortable with the implications of a particular fact, and think that those implications shouldn't be drawn, because there is other important context.

Yes, that's entirely fine. Very often it's true that a fact is both true and, if looked at in isolation, misleading. By all means say, "yes, it's true, but there is also other important context." Thats very different from claiming that the fact isn't false.

If an 80 year old who murdered someone when he was 20 is in a room with 20 year old and says "I've gone longer without killing anyone than anyone else in this room", he be stating a true fact. What you think that fact implies is up to you. I personally wouldn't think it implied very much, but that doesn't make it false.

Claiming otherwise is doing your reasoning backward: starting with you conclusion and reasoning backward to your facts.

The exact same thing is true of the statement about the US. Whether or not you find the fact that the US has had nukes without using them for a longer time than any other nation to be meaningful is separate from whether or not it's true.

This is one of my major pet peeves. People seem incapable of discussing narrow issues. We can have a discussion of whether or not a particular fact is true even though the implications of that fact seem to support a conclusion that you disagree with. And this is because the preponderance of other facts might still make clear the that implied conclusion is false.

It's possible for the following to be true:

A is true
A is evidence that B is true
B is false

Arguing that B is false is not an argument that A is necessarily false. Pointing out that A is true doesn't imply that you think B is also true.

The US is only country that used nukes. The US is also the country that possessed nukes for a remarkably short time before using it. So that to bring up the incidental fact that it is also the country that's gone longest after that without using nukes is ...not utterly urrelevant, but it telegraphs an argument that's fundamentally disingenuous:

That's fine. Then make that argument. Making the argument that this fact is being used to make a point that isn't valid is not the same as saying the fact is false.

I was pointing out the obvious flaw in that argument.

No, you were claiming that an obvious true fact is false. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the argument. I have a problem with you conflating the implications of the argument with the facts used to make the argument.

To answer the weird question that you keep asking me ---- weird, because the answer's so obvious that I'm surprised you're even asking, and also weird because the factuality is not as cut and dried as you imply:

One more time. Yes, the fact is extremely cut and dried. We're just comparing two numbers: how long has the US had nukes without using them? How long has Russia had nukes without using them. Which one is larger?

What the implications of that fact are is a completely separate issue from what the fact is. If you feel its important to the discussion to put that fact in context, by all means do so. But don't claim that a fact isn't true when it is.

I'm gong to stop now because I feel I'd just be repeating the same rather obvious point over and over again.

 

[Chanakya]

Roboramma, you've responded to some portions of my post, but left out the meat of it. The part about factuality, not interpretation.

(And of course, the support for that --- it's a TLDR summary after all, and an afterthought edit --- you'll have to go back to the rest of my post for, to those bits that you've also left out responding to just now.)

It's right up there, but let me copy it here one more time for your ease of reference:


(All the rest of what follows is copy-pasted from above)



TLDR:
The only honest answer to the question is both Yes and No, with a brief sentence in explanation.

To either answer with just a Yes, or to answer with just a No, would definitely be disingenuous, even if technically neither is a lie. As a matter of factuality not of interpretation.

(If you really want to frame your question in such a way that Yes becomes the only answer ---- as you've been trying hard to do, I can't quite fathom why ---- then instead of focusing on factuality you should focus on technicality. If you really badly want me to answer you with a Yes, then instead of keeping on asking me, "Is it factually true that da-duh-dum?", you should, instead, switch your question to "Is it technically true that da-duh-dum?")


----------

eta again:
Come to think of it, even if you phrase the question like that, with the focus on technicality, even so you are not guaranteed a Yes answer. I can still answer No, and be technically just as correct.

So, the only way you can phrase that question you keep asking me repeatedly, so as to be assured of the Yes answer (that for some reason you seem to be after) would be to put it this way: "Is it technically a lie that the US has owned nukes the longest time without deploying them?" Ask me that, and yes, you'll then be assured of a "No" answer, which you can turn around into a Yes by reversing the construct of the sentence.

So cool: ask me that next time, if you like: and I'll answer with a No, and then you can legit turn it around to a Yes, and go away happy.



eta: Heh, sorry about any possible damage to your eyes from the psychedelic colors, but I thought of putting in this edit now, and clearly wanted to separate out the copied portion above, which also includes "eta"s, from what I'm now going to put in:

...If an 80 year old who murdered someone when he was 20 is in a room with 20 year old and says "I've gone longer without killing anyone than anyone else in this room", he be stating a true fact. What you think that fact implies is up to you. I personally wouldn't think it implied very much, but that doesn't make it false. ...

Haha, I'd actually typed out in my comment to you something exactly along those lines, that very example. (Great minds think alike!!) ...And argued exactly the same thing that I did in this post, but via that analogy.

And then, before posting, decided to do away with the analogy and instead state this directly. Because I believe analogies can be a great tool for communication, but only when both sides engage with full good faith (regardless of whether they agree or disagree), and also provided the analogy's apt. This time I think the analogy's apt, but I decided not to further complicate things by using analogies instead.

So yeah, absolutely, go ahead and read the psychedelically colored stuff with reference to this analogy as well, by all means: and go back to my the stuff from my comment that you'd left out and that support the stuff in blue and that I didn't copy there because that would make it even longer than it has already become ---- and absolutely, you'll find the exact same thing argued there. (Or at least, heh, to employ the kind of precision you're insisting on: You'll find me making the exact same argument, and I'm hoping you'll find the argument persuasive --- both as the standalone it was, and also as applied to your analogy, which actually was my analogy as well except I deleted that bit of it and restated it more directly.)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think the point is that the US used nukes and was sufficiently horrified as not never contemplate a first-use policy (ignoring the usual idiots), worked hard to prevent proliferation (quite successfully) as well as creating a stable framework of MAD between itself and the other significant nuclear power of the time.

But the question: who has nukes able to be deployed?
is in many ways less relevant than the question: who can take a few nukes in the face, retaliate and recover ?

Britain might be have a credible second strike capability, but the country would be effectively neutralized by just a few hits.
Israel would not survive a single strike.

Compared to that, the US, Russia, China, India, North Korea all could probably take a dozen or more and still retaliate, operate and recover.
And only if you can do that do you have a credible deterrent threat, as you have a credible path of coming out of a nuclear exchange ahead of your enemy.
Otherwise, all you have is, at best, a dead-man switch.

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, why? I mean: why is that funny?

(Sorry to butt in, but happened to see that exchange, didn't get the context, and thought I'd just ask!)

It's funny because of the assumption that Australia needs protection from China, and only America can do that. It's parochial and condescending, and I thought it better to lol at it than actually address the American Nanny in the room.

 

[Roboramma]

Chanyaka, I read your entire post and feel that my post responded to the argument that you made there. I didn't feel the need to quote everything in my response, but any response to the unquoted parts would have been pretty much the same argument that I was making elsewhere.

I do agree with you (and disagree with theprestige's general view) that analogies can be useful in discussion. But I also try to think of what we're doing as actually discussing topics rather than just arguing with each other. I'm glad that I get the sense that you generally have that same view. I understand others who don't see it that way as most of the time we don't really get closer to each other's viewpoints, so clearly something is going wrong. But I still think it's better to frame it, at least for myself, in that way, and hopefully it can keep me more likely to be willing to change my mind. I did try to frame that analogy in the most steelman-ing way I could so as to keep the full power of your argument present while still trying to make my point clear. Its cool that we had the same thought.

In my next post, since you asked, I'll respond to the part of your post that I didn't respond to earlier.

 

[Roboramma]

To answer the weird question that you keep asking me ---- weird, because the answer's so obvious that I'm surprised you're even asking, and also weird because the factuality is not as cut and dried as you imply: this question: Is it a fact the US owned nukes longest without using them? It's not honest to simply say Yes; and it is dishonest rendering of the actual picture to simply say No.

The fact is the US has possessed nukes for a very remarkably short time before deploying them, and not just once, so the answer is a No.

That doesn't make sense. It's both true that the US possessed nukes for a very short time before deploying them, and that the US has both had nukes and not used them for longer than any other nation. The truth of the former doesn't even tell us anything about whether or not the latter is true.

I honestly don't understand why you think that the former being true means that the latter is not true. How do you get from "The fact is the US has possessed nukes for a very remarkably short time before deploying them, and not just once" to "so the answer is a No"?

Can you spell that out for me?

On the other hand, yes, absolutely, after that the US has not used nukes, obviously; and it's had nukes longer than Russia, the UK, or France ---- so the answer is Yes; but even so, even in that limited sense only a technical Yes, because Russia got its nukes very soon after that.

Sure, Russia has also had nukes for a long time without using them, though I don't think that the difference is as trivial as you present it, it's what, 5%? Still, I agree with the general point that the US and Russia have both had nukes for a similar length of time. I'd even go further and say that the difference in length of time between the US and other nations like France isn't all that large either.

In other words, while I completely disagree with your claim that the statement is false, like you I don't actually think it's a very meaningful fact in context. I don't think it's completely meaningless, but it's something like a difference of 5%, not 20% or 50%, and I don't actually expect those other nations to fail to make it to the same point that the US is now (in length of time both possessing nukes and not using them).

So that, to give you the answer you keep on insisting I furnish: It is disingenuous, even if not technically a lie, to answer that question with a Yes. The honest answer is both Yes and No, with a brief sentence in explanation --- particularly given the fact that the weight of the Yes-it-is-country-that's-longest-without-using-nukes part of the answer is far lighter than the weight of the No-and-on-the-contrary-it's-gone-for-a-crazy-short-time-before-immediately-using-its-nukes part of the answer. (Because Russia got its nukes very soon after, and so have possessed nukes just as long, for all practical purposes; while the US is emphatically the only country, ever, to nuke another.)

I would cut this because I feel I've already responded to it, but I did that in my first response and you weren't happy, so let me just reiterate that I don't see how the "no-..." part is in any way an answer to the actual question. It's an answer to a different question, but isn't even related to how long the US has both had nukes and not used them.

Is there something else specific in your post that you feel I didn't respond to with the above (and my previous response)?

 

[Planigale]

Are you actually disputing the factual nature of thepretige's claim? The period in which the US has possessed nuclear weapons and not used them is longer than that for any other nation. Whether or not you find this fact meaningful is a separate question from whether or not its accurate.

Want to test its accuracy? Just ask, how long is that period for the US? It stretches from just after the bombs were dropped in 1945 to today, so ~79 years.

Is there another nation that has both possessed nuclear weapons and not used them for more than 79 years?



Yes, this is also a fact. Both are true. It's up to you to determine the meaning of those facts.

Canada, and they have kept it very quiet*; Tube Alloys was far more successful than was ever announced. For political reasons Canada had to allow the US to catch up with the Manhattan project. The balance of terror has kept peace across the US-Canadian border despite outstanding US claims on Canadian territory.

*If you try looking for information about the Canadian nuclear arsenal on the internet you'll find nothing which just proves the truth of this.

 

[Chanakya]

It's funny because of the assumption that Australia needs protection from China, and only America can do that. It's parochial and condescending, and I thought it better to lol at it than actually address the American Nanny in the room.

Got it.

(Thought that was some actual ha-ha joke, that had gone over my head, given my very sketchy, practically non-existent, knowledge of Australian politics. And, on an impulse, butted in to ask.)

 

[Chanakya]

Chanyaka, I read your entire post and feel that my post responded to the argument that you made there. I didn't feel the need to quote everything in my response, but any response to the unquoted parts would have been pretty much the same argument that I was making elsewhere.

I do agree with you (and disagree with theprestige's general view) that analogies can be useful in discussion. But I also try to think of what we're doing as actually discussing topics rather than just arguing with each other. I'm glad that I get the sense that you generally have that same view. I understand others who don't see it that way as most of the time we don't really get closer to each other's viewpoints, so clearly something is going wrong. But I still think it's better to frame it, at least for myself, in that way, and hopefully it can keep me more likely to be willing to change my mind. I did try to frame that analogy in the most steelman-ing way I could so as to keep the full power of your argument present while still trying to make my point clear. Its cool that we had the same thought.

In my next post, since you asked, I'll respond to the part of your post that I didn't respond to earlier.

Yep, same. Very glad.

That’s something you see far less here than you’d normally expect, for some reason. Rare enough that one feels …glad, when one happens to come across an instance of this.

(TBH, I thought you were doing the other thing there. Hence my somewhat cynical tone. My mistake, I realize that now.)