The No Nuke Obama

[The Atheist]

Magic.

We need to think up a name for this Obama bloke - along the lines of "the Great", as in Alexander, Catherine and a few others.

"God" has already been taken.

Obama the Magnificent?

 

[Cobalt]

Is it too soon to suggest "Overrated?"

There was already a thread on this. It's still on page one, even.

 

[Unabogie]

He already has one.

"President"

 

[The Atheist]

Is it too soon to suggest "Overrated?"

There was already a thread on this. It's still on page one, even.

Must have missed it, I wondered that it hadn't come up. No matter.

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the comment, but I do appreciate a US President who can at least raise the subject, no matter how unlikely the outcome. It makes smart, 2009 politics, so different from the bumbling efforts of his predecessor, and if nothing else, it raises US prestige outside USA, which is definitely needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the comment, but I do appreciate a US President who can at least raise the subject, no matter how unlikely the outcome. It makes smart, 2009 politics, so different from the bumbling efforts of his predecessor, and if nothing else, it raises US prestige outside USA, which is definitely needed.

Our prestige has very little to do with the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Furthermore, there's a fundamental problem with the entire notion of disarmament that I have never seen disarmament proponents even acknowledge. And that's the issue of marginal value. If there are, say, 10,000 nuclear weapons in the world, what is the marginal value of 1 nuclear weapon? Not all that much. If there are 10 nuclear weapons in the world, what is the marginal value of 1 nuclear weapon? Quite a lot. The fewer nuclear weapons we have, the larger the relative value of each nuclear weapon of any other state. This means that decreasing our own arsenal actually increases the incentive for other states to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. When dictatorships consider whether or not to try to acquire nuclear weapons, they're not going to give a damn about whether or not we've got prestige, or whether or not we're being hypocritical or applying unfair standards to the rest of the world. They're going to care about how much it costs to get one, and they're going to care about how much they gain from getting one. Disarmament (even if not total) increases the benefit to dictatorships of acquiring nuclear weapons, and so will make it more likely that such countries will do so.

The fact of the matter is, even decreasing our nuclear arsenal will not make the world any safer as long as there are dictatorships. Obama doesn't seem to understand this at all. His approach to the issue is idealistic but extremely naive.

 

[The Atheist]

Our prestige has very little to do with the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Since that has nothing to do with what I said, I wonder why you bothered typing it, but each to his own.

Furthermore, there's a fundamental problem with the entire notion of disarmament that I have never seen disarmament proponents even acknowledge.

Probably because it's so obvious only an idiot would explain it. While many people are really thick, most of 'em can count to one.

The fact of the matter is, even decreasing our nuclear arsenal will not make the world any safer as long as there are dictatorships. Obama doesn't seem to understand this at all.

What on earth would make you say that? Unless the man is a complete ignnoramus, I'd find it incredible that he didn't have a very good understanding of dictatorships. Seems to me that he has a pretty good grasp of international politics as well.

His approach to the issue is idealistic but extremely naive.

Ah, you see, I'd count naivety as reading the words and thinking Obama was speaking 100% literally.

 

[Ziggurat]

Our prestige has very little to do with the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Since that has nothing to do with what I said, I wonder why you bothered typing it

it raises US prestige outside USA, which is definitely needed.

My statement was not intended to contradict what you said earlier, but do you honestly not see any connection?

Ah, you see, I'd count naivety as reading the words and thinking Obama was speaking 100% literally.

This isn't a question of literalism or not. It's a question of understanding where the threats come from, and how to minimize those threats. The primary threat of nuclear war doesn't come from superpowers, but from smaller dictatorships with nuclear weapons. And the only way to permanently eliminate this threat is to get rid of those dictatorships. If you're not willing to take steps to end those dictatorships now, if you want to wait and hope for those dictatorships to change because of something other than direct pressure, then you keep your arsenal, because having a big arsenal yourself discourages, not encourages, those dictatorships from acquire nuclear weapons. Obama has given no indication that he understands this basic dynamic. He has placed the emphasis on the weapons themselves, but that's not where the threat originates. He talks about eliminating nuclear weapons, when he should be talking about eliminating dictatorships.

 

[plumjam]

If the US gets rid of all its nuclear weapons I'll spend a winter weekend at Kathy Bates' house in the country.
Pretty transparent propaganda ploy to try to strengthen the case against North Korea and Iran.

 

[Minadin]

I don't see why, in these modern times, we can't have less nukes overall without compromising the security of the powers that have them. No nukes might be impossible, but less nukes is still better than the status quo ante.

 

[Just thinking]

We need to think up a name for this Obama bloke - along the lines of "the Great", as in Alexander, Catherine and a few others.

"God" has already been taken.

Obama the Magnificent?

Less nukes ... perhaps.

No Nukes? .... hows about Obama the Oblivious.

 

[egslim]

The fewer nuclear weapons we have, the larger the relative value of each nuclear weapon of any other state.

No, because the value of your nukes is defined in terms of how well they can destroy the other country. And vice versa. So, if we disregard the potential disabilitating strike for the moment, the marginal value of the enemy's nukes is independent of the number of your nukes, as long as you still have enough to destroy him.

You would be right if the US and Britain were to nuke Iran together, then removing half the US's nukes would increase the relative value of Britain's nukes. But for Iran the marginal value of an Iranian nuke is independent of whether the US can destroy Iran five or ten times over.

By the way, to destroy a country it is sufficient to target its major cities, evaporating every single village isn't necessary.

And a disabilitating strike can be defended against by SLBMs, so that's not much of an issue.

When dictatorships consider whether or not to try to acquire nuclear weapons, they're not going to give a damn about whether or not we've got prestige, or whether or not we're being hypocritical or applying unfair standards to the rest of the world. They're going to care about how much it costs to get one, and they're going to care about how much they gain from getting one.

Agreed, and exactly the same is true for democracies.

Since the technology required is getting older every year, and nuclear energy is becoming gradually more attractive, the cost continues to go down. In a world with reduced nuclear stockpiles the only benefit to be gained from obtaining a nuke is to defend against conventional invasion.

The fact of the matter is, even decreasing our nuclear arsenal will not make the world any safer as long as there are dictatorships.

That's a load of bollocks. Take for example Pakistan, which is a lot safer (for the rest of the world) under a military dictatorship than with a democratic government under influence from the Pashtun/Taliban ethnic group.
Or the US, which invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

Where a country is located on the spectrum of democracy/dictatorship has very little to do with the world's safety.

Obama doesn't seem to understand this at all. His approach to the issue is idealistic but extremely naive.

I don't believe for a second Obama is that stupid. I think he uses "no nukes" as a starting point to obtain merely reductions.

 

[The Atheist]

My statement was not intended to contradict what you said earlier, but do you honestly not see any connection?

No, because the only one is the one you made up. I agree that little if any of the current lack of prestige is due to nukes, but this type of statement is regaining some of that prestige.

Nicely shows how your mind works, though.

He talks about eliminating nuclear weapons, when he should be talking about eliminating dictatorships.

Ah, you'd like to see more wars? Fortunately, the President doesn't have that kind of ridiculous attitude, seeing peace as a much more cost-effective idea.

Not to mention that all of the threat and damage to USA has been terrorist-based rather than state-based, or are you still living in "Saddam supported Al Qaeda" mode?

If the US gets rid of all its nuclear weapons I'll spend a winter weekend at Kathy Bates' house in the country.

Hell, if that happened, I'd go down on Dubbya.

I don't see why, in these modern times, we can't have less nukes overall without compromising the security of the powers that have them. No nukes might be impossible, but less nukes is still better than the status quo ante.

Quite right, although:

Less nukes ... perhaps.

"Fewer" is a better way of putting it, since less is volumetric and fewer is numeric.

I don't believe for a second Obama is that stupid. I think he uses "no nukes" as a starting point to obtain merely reductions.

Well put.

 

[plumjam]

Hell, if that happened, I'd go down on Dubbya.

Thank goodness for the Dubb part.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow, haven't seen a good political Rorschach thread in a while!

I'd go with Obama the Visible Pink Unicorn!

 

[Ziggurat]

No, because the only one is the one you made up. I agree that little if any of the current lack of prestige is due to nukes, but this type of statement is regaining some of that prestige.

Nicely shows how your mind works, though.

No, I don't think you do see how my mind works. I'm still not sure what you think I'm trying to say, but I doubt it resembles what I'm actually trying to say.

Ah, you'd like to see more wars?

No: I'd like to see fewer dictatorships. Wouldn't you?

Not to mention that all of the threat and damage to USA has been terrorist-based rather than state-based, or are you still living in "Saddam supported Al Qaeda" mode?

Nice strawman. I don't believe I ever claimed Saddam supported Al Qaeda, though he did sponsor other terrorists, and various states (including Iran) have tolerated and even sponsored terrorist groups that have killed American citizens. But tell me: since Obama himself talked about the threat of nuclear terrorism, where do you think that threat is going to come from? Is it going to come from terrorists hijacking US military nukes? Is it going to come from democracies giving their nukes to terrorists? Are the terrorists going to cook up a batch of enriched uranium in a shed in the mountains? Or are dictatorships maybe, possibly, more than a little bit central to the threat?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where a country is located on the spectrum of democracy/dictatorship has very little to do with the world's safety.

This is a fundamental point of disagreement between us. I do not think we can agree to much about international politics if we disagree on this point.

 

[GreyICE]

Our prestige has very little to do with the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Furthermore, there's a fundamental problem with the entire notion of disarmament that I have never seen disarmament proponents even acknowledge. And that's the issue of marginal value. If there are, say, 10,000 nuclear weapons in the world, what is the marginal value of 1 nuclear weapon? Not all that much. If there are 10 nuclear weapons in the world, what is the marginal value of 1 nuclear weapon? Quite a lot. The fewer nuclear weapons we have, the larger the relative value of each nuclear weapon of any other state. This means that decreasing our own arsenal actually increases the incentive for other states to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. When dictatorships consider whether or not to try to acquire nuclear weapons, they're not going to give a damn about whether or not we've got prestige, or whether or not we're being hypocritical or applying unfair standards to the rest of the world. They're going to care about how much it costs to get one, and they're going to care about how much they gain from getting one. Disarmament (even if not total) increases the benefit to dictatorships of acquiring nuclear weapons, and so will make it more likely that such countries will do so.

The fact of the matter is, even decreasing our nuclear arsenal will not make the world any safer as long as there are dictatorships. Obama doesn't seem to understand this at all. His approach to the issue is idealistic but extremely naive.

I do not think any of the things you posted quite make the sense you think they do.

If the US has 10,000 nuclear weapons and NK has one, how is this different from the US having 1,000, or 100?

 

[Ziggurat]

If the US has 10,000 nuclear weapons and NK has one, how is this different from the US having 1,000, or 100?

I am not claiming that 10,000 nukes is 10 times as useful or powerful as 1,000 nukes. But there is indeed a difference. In particular, if we really only had 100 nukes, we'd be fairly constrained compared to our current capabilities. Remember that our arsenal includes nukes of different yields as well as nukes in different delivery packages. You can't just swap warheads into different devices. So the number of nukes we'd have available in a certain yield range, with a given delivery method, could number in the handful. Since we're a superpower, we want to have these available for use anywhere, any time, just in case. But that's damn hard to do with just a handful - in fact, you really can't do it with just 100. And so we would be less powerful. Which makes our adversaries more powerful, relative to us.

If you don't think the numbers matter at all past 100, then perhaps you'd care to explain why both the US and the USSR engaged in an arms race regarding nuclear weapons. Were we both just stupid? Or were our militaries perhaps considering aspects that you aren't?

 

[GreyICE]

I am not claiming that 10,000 nukes is 10 times as useful or powerful as 1,000 nukes. But there is indeed a difference. In particular, if we really only had 100 nukes, we'd be fairly constrained compared to our current capabilities. Remember that our arsenal includes nukes of different yields as well as nukes in different delivery packages. You can't just swap warheads into different devices. So the number of nukes we'd have available in a certain yield range, with a given delivery method, could number in the handful. Since we're a superpower, we want to have these available for use anywhere, any time, just in case. But that's damn hard to do with just a handful - in fact, you really can't do it with just 100. And so we would be less powerful. Which makes our adversaries more powerful, relative to us.

If you don't think the numbers matter at all past 100, then perhaps you'd care to explain why both the US and the USSR engaged in an arms race regarding nuclear weapons. Were we both just stupid? Or were our militaries perhaps considering aspects that you aren't?

No, we engaged in an arms race for a completely different reason.

We engaged in an arms race because without an arms race a first strike could wipe out 100 nukes virtually instantly. The goal was not to produce some variety of nuclear warhead - ICBM, ultimate warhead, no other need apply.

The goal was to create a sufficient volume of warheads that the remaining number after a nuclear first strike would be sufficient to ensure utter destruction of the opponent, and most likely 95% of the human race.

The goal was to create a situation where the consequences of engaging in a nuclear first strike were extinction.

Your knowledge of history is a bit lacking.

 

[Thunder]

I would be satisfied if the USA and Russia had 100 nukes each. That way we can blow each other to hell..but the world is safe from nuclear destruction.