Pirate_Secure t1_iu6pfh0 wrote
Another proof that the UN is useless. What is their plan to convince the entire world to nuclear disarmament and keep it that way and don't nuclear weapons prevent wars?
Bangkok_Dave t1_iu6upnd wrote
The UN is absolutely not useless. It's just not a world government / world police which imposes regulations on sovereign countries. It's not supposed to be that. "The UN" doesn't have plans for disarmament over and above the plans discussed and agreed by national governments. It's a forum for international dialogue (amongst various other things) and it's very successful at that
Spinaccio t1_iu6rkho wrote
Actually, logically no sane nation should want to build a nuclear arsenal. I’ve never seen a comprehensive cost analysis, but from r&d, testing, implementation, security, cleanup, and many costs I haven’t thought of, the nuclear powers have to have spent countless trillions on the game of my dick is bigger than yours, realizing too late they can’t use them. Given a clear picture of how badly nuclear weapons would hobble your country’s progress with no benefit that good diplomacy could achieve, the cost benefit analysis seems pretty obvious to me.
I Am Not A Nuclear Weapons Expert.
Azumarillussy t1_iu6t4ca wrote
The cost/benefit is actually pretty good, and we can see it play out in North Korea right now.
See the thing about nuclear weapons is that they only need to be 'in working order,' to be effective. What's that effect?
You don't get invaded. That's their entire use. You might fight a proxy war, you might not get your way, but quite simply you don't get invaded.
No country will ever have their tanks on US, UK, French, German, North Korean, Russian, Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani soil. Ever. It's not happening. So all military funding for these countries is no longer on 'defense' it's on 'offense and upkeep of nuclear weapons.'
That enables countries to massively overhaul their militaries to be much more imperialistic (in the cases of the US and Russia, now also China), or reduce military spending overall to minimum levels in order to accomplish their foreign policy goals (i.e. France/UK/Germany).
If you have nuclear weapons, no one is invading you since you can end the world if you start losing. Regardless of the cost, it is a ridiculously good benefit given the existence of imperialist countries that can and do invade random countries regularly (see US and Russia.)
Spinaccio t1_iu6vo0v wrote
The US was never been invaded from the time it became a nation, without nukes. North Korea forced an end to the war they arguably started with help from the CCCP, and were not invaded afterwards, again without a nuclear deterrent. European politics are…historically complex and putting a finger one one element- nuclear weapons- as the core reason for post WW2 stability is overly simplistic.
Saying that nuclear weapons “only need to be in working order” is another oversimplification. Maintaining and protecting a nuclear arsenal requires not only huge amounts of money, educating people to be qualified to do so, maintaining a security apparatus to protect that arsenal, but also a system to develop, evaluate and effect upgrades to aging systems. Let’s not leave out the incidental costs of having these weapons around, like poisoning of individuals and communities, which also need to be considered in a full accounting. If you leave out the most important costs and only list “there might be a monster under my bed…someday”, that’s not a valid cost benefit analysis.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments