Which non-nuclear nations SHOULD acquire nuclear weapons?

theprestige said:
Japan and Australia should probably have their own independent deterrents.

It's really a question of how seriously you take the threat of nuclear extortion by Russia and China, and whether you believe the US arsenal is a credible long-term counterbalance to that.

If you're Japan or Australia, the ability to nuke a task force before it makes landfall might not seem like such an insignificant thing, twenty or thirty years from now.

--
Okay, not really. But that's about as close as I can come to a justification.
Click to expand...

Not needed for Australia. We already have snakes, spiders, jellyfish and octopi in weaponized form. Even think about invading and we infest your homeland.
 
I can't say I actively want any further countries to obtain a nuclear stockpile, but I'd be okay with any modern, secular Western Style democracy obtaining them.

And if you have a robust nuclear power program and any means of weaponized delivery, you pretty much are a nuclear power. It's just a matter of loading the bullets into the gun. You could actually consider Japan, Canada, Germany, Italy, and possibly other countries Nuclear Powers from that point of view, in that they could have a reasonable nuclear capability in a matter of weeks if so desired.

Japan for instance, could be a major nuclear power practically immediately given it's nuclear power production and advance space program. (It's primary space launch vehicle is for all practical purposes copy of the American Peacekeeper ICBM, and many people have speculated that it was adopted for the Japanese Space Program for just that reason.)
 
Border Reiver said:
Would the NPT prevent Canada from reaquiring them?

We only gave ours up in '74 or so.
Click to expand...

I spoke to a former Canadian CF-104 pilot at the Calgary Air museum a few years ago. He told me the nukes weren't "ours". There were nukes on hand at Canadian bases, but they were accompanied by a USAF officer who would surrender the keys to a Canadian officer of appropriate rank upon receiving confirmation of the orders.
 
Kid Eager said:
Not needed for Australia. We already have snakes, spiders, jellyfish and octopi in weaponized form. Even think about invading and we infest your homeland.
Click to expand...

Who the hell would invade Australia on purpose?




_____________________________________________


My moon country will have them. And use them. As fireworks.
 
The problem is that recent US foreign policy has demonstrated to the world that if you don't have nukes, or give up your nukes, the US will have no qualms about invading you or otherwise engaging in military action against you if the government can find what passes for a reasonable justification for it.
On the other hand, if you have nukes, you can do pretty much anything you want and the US will just wring its hands and write a firmly worded letter.

So, if you have any reason to believe that the US may dislike you in the future, it's in your best interests to develop nukes. :(
 
Dear deity of choice, no more nukes!

We can't put the genie in the bottle, but we can stop handing out bottles.

Anyhow, the existing club is notoriously energetic in maintaining their exclusive status.
 
Which non-nuclear nations SHOULD acquire nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
All of them. The egalitarian appeal is too strong for me to argue against.

UN would become "United Nukulars" instead of this farce called "United Nations."

It would be a syndicate, and everybody would get a share.

I am just trying to figure out the catch to this ... there used to only be 22 of those
 
Armitage72 said:
The problem is that recent US foreign policy has demonstrated to the world that if you don't have nukes, or give up your nukes, the US will have no qualms about invading you or otherwise engaging in military action against you if the government can find what passes for a reasonable justification for it.
On the other hand, if you have nukes, you can do pretty much anything you want and the US will just wring its hands and write a firmly worded letter.

So, if you have any reason to believe that the US may dislike you in the future, it's in your best interests to develop nukes. :(
Click to expand...



This.

When you ask which nations "should" get the Bomb, are you looking at it from the perspective of the particular nations themselves, or the perspective of everybody else? Because the answers in each of those cases are pretty much diametrically opposed.

Were I to become Dictator of Some Weird Country, I'd immediately start a program of developing Nukes. However, not currently being such, I'd prefer it if all the actual current dictators be kept out of the club. But I don't fault them for wanting to join. It just makes sense, from their perspective.
 
None, and those who have them should work to dismantle them.

The more places that get nukes, the more chances that some suicidal, end-of-the-world junky, idiot zealot will somehow get their hands on a weapon. It may only be one weapon but that can still seriously ruin your decade.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I spoke to a former Canadian CF-104 pilot at the Calgary Air museum a few years ago. He told me the nukes weren't "ours". There were nukes on hand at Canadian bases, but they were accompanied by a USAF officer who would surrender the keys to a Canadian officer of appropriate rank upon receiving confirmation of the orders.
Click to expand...

You forget the ones that went onto the Honest John SSM missiles that were part of the RCA. My ex-RSM worked in 1 SSM Bty.
 
arthwollipot said:
Either none of them or ALL of them.
Click to expand...
Of these options, "all of them" is not a good option. All countries having an army at all is not a good option. Some leaders turn the army against their own people, and others only refrain from doing so because the population is currently (possibly for decades) submissive to their dictatorial regime.
 
JJM 777 said:
Of these options, "all of them" is not a good option.
Click to expand...
You didn't say why, but instead wandered off into this digression.
All countries having an army at all is not a good option. Some leaders turn the army against their own people, and others only refrain from doing so because the population is currently (possibly for decades) submissive to their dictatorial regime.
Click to expand...
Care to stick to the topic?

Armies and nuclear weapons are related topics, but do not need to be conflated in this discussion.

Stick to the scenario, would you?

The point is to consider a subset of arms, a nation in arms, and weapons allegedly for the benefit of a nation, in this case the subset known as nuclear weapons.

Any further questions on the topic at hand?
 
Taiwan. In fact, I wish the US would arm Taiwan. I also wish the US would actively seek to provoke India into attacking Pakistan, or vice versa.
 
theprestige said:
Japan and Australia should probably have their own independent deterrents.

It's really a question of how seriously you take the threat of nuclear extortion by Russia and China, and whether you believe the US arsenal is a credible long-term counterbalance to that.

If you're Japan or Australia, the ability to nuke a task force before it makes landfall might not seem like such an insignificant thing, twenty or thirty years from now.











--
Okay, not really. But that's about as close as I can come to a justification.
Click to expand...

No one will ever confuse us with Austria again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom