Not an expert on this stuff but...

As far as I am aware, the general trend amongst the major nuclear powers *has* been disarmament. Nuclear stockpiles are decreasing not increasing.

It is still politically and militarily sensitive however and for those reasons the process is one that can only be pursued multilaterally.

As for spending money on maintaining them... these things are kind of dangerous. The collapse of the Soviet Union raised all sorts of fears about *not* properly maintaining nuclear material.

---

by Avenger
they cannot even be considered a deterent, how can someone be detered with a weapon that you have said that you won't use? And who are they detering anyway?

---

If an attack with weapons of mass destruction actually happends do you really think that the country that is being attacked will not, at least consider, use this type of weapons if they posses it. Think of the public opinion after such an attack..... It's still a perfectly good deterent as laws change due to public opinion.

It is not only a deterent, it also enables people to sleep peacefully at night with the thought that they will not be attacked because they have these weapons and if they are attacked atleast they can do something back.

Now these weapons have been invented they can't be disinvented they will now forever exist in one form or another.

---

by Incandenza
As far as I am aware, the general trend amongst the major nuclear powers *has* been disarmament. Nuclear stockpiles are decreasing not increasing.

---

You can't fully disarm anymore as there has to be just one looney with a bomb......that would give them enormous power. Considering Russia lost over 35 suitcase size atomic bombs in the last 20 years..... And yes we have been disarming the stockpiles, we can now blow up the world 80 times over instead of 120 times.... it's just all about cutting the costs of keeping them in good shape thats all nothing more nothing less. Oh and it shows your good will to all the other nations in the world Nothing works as well as nuclear disarmement on your PR rating

Weapons of mass destruction make sure you can sleep safely at night not having to worry every moment of every day if there is a looney out there that can build or bought a bomb and will now use it as there is no effective counter meassure anymore. In my eyes that worth a few millions of pounds a year / a week! If that just means that the world markets will continue to function and the economy isn't brought to a direct halt because of or a terrorist or rogue nation....

Just face it we don't live in a perfect world.... better just make the best of it.


(Edited by Chambler 12/04/2003 12:26)

I fail to see how nuclear weapons are a deterrent against terrorist attack at all. Well, it might discourage countries from supporting terrorism, but it certainly wouldn't be considered by the likes of bin Laden..

Personally I've never bought the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction anyway. Even if, at the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union had launched nuclear strikes at the US, it would still, in the interests of the survival of the species, not have been a good idea to retaliate with the full force of their nuclear arsenal.

I think the general idea was for it to be a teterrant, more than anything else, as nobody would dare push the button because the knew the other side would do the same if they did. All a big balancing act. But no, I'm definately not in favour of them at all, the sheer amount of money spent by the major governments on "defence" (or "defense" if you're that way inclined) if spent in other areas could;
a) wipe out 3rd world debt
b) ensure free university level education to most of the populace
c) fund enough research into cheap/free environmentally friendly renewable engergy resources, making oil war a thing of the past.

But no, they'd rather play toy soldiers with real lives

---

by Stoo
But no, I'm definately not in favour of them at all, the sheer amount of money spent by the major governments on "defence" (or "defense" if you're that way inclined) if spent in other areas could;
a) wipe out 3rd world debt
b) ensure free university level education to most of the populace
c) fund enough research into cheap/free environmentally friendly renewable engergy resources, making oil war a thing of the past.

But no, they'd rather play toy soldiers with real lives

---

Isn't this just a teeny bit simplistic?

To quote Jack Nicholson in AFGM... 'Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? ... my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.'

Why is it difficult for attacks like September 11 to happen? Because countries can defend themselves against conventional attacks.

Why are we able to intervene in Kosovo and take a stand against genocide? Because countries maintain standing, professional armies.

I have seen no evidence in my life that humanity en masse is ready to evolve beyond the urge to take as much as possible by force. When that happens, maybe we can stop spending money on defence.

---

by Chambler
If an attack with weapons of mass destruction actually happends do you really think that the country that is being attacked will not, at least consider, use this type of weapons if they posses it.

---

My point being that this is exactly what is implied by the language being used by the British and American governments. If the use of any WMDs is a crime against humanity, then the fact that someone else did it first wouldn't legitmise it.

---

by Chambler
Weapons of mass destruction make sure you can sleep safely at night not having to worry every moment of every day if there is a looney out there that can build or bought a bomb and will now use it as there is no effective counter meassure anymore.

---

As Dan has said I don't see the deterent value at all here. The deterent value of nuclear weapons was always shaky anyway when applied to states (given that it relied on the threat of doing something that, if you actually did it, meant that your strategy was a complete failure anyway). Applied to individuals it really makes no sense.

---

by Incandenza
As far as I am aware, the general trend amongst the major nuclear powers *has* been disarmament. Nuclear stockpiles are decreasing not increasing.

---

True, and also true what you say about the impossibility of just decommisioning nukes just like that. But, as has already been pointed out, cutting back on stockpiles when you still have more than sufficient weaponry to destroy the planet is not really something to be celebrated. And, no nuclear power has demonstrated any commitment to move towards abolishing their weapons.

Well okay, but the amount of spending on "defence" seems to be going ever upward.. for example;
The cost of a single Tomahawk cruise missile: $750,000.
Total number of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired into Iraq to 3rd April: 725. That's $550 million in a few days in one conflict...
Amount U.S. will spend on missile defence research and development this year: $7.4 billion

Percentage of U.S. military spending that would provide global population with basic necessities: 10%

American Budget for 2004: $2.2 trillion.

Okay so you couldn't not have a defence budget, but the sums of money involved are certainly questionable.

The numbers aren't quite that simple Stoo; although the spend is very high the critical factor here is that the spend is almost all internal to the US -- the money they're spending on the weapons goes to US companies (generally speaking), so although it needs accounting for the cost to the taxpayer isn't nearly as high as it first appears.

A significant proportion of the rest of the "cost" of the war would be incurred whether or not there was a war -- most of the salaries (70-80% IIRC), plus 90%+ of the running costs of some of the ships (a sub or carrier is *expensive* to run day-to-day).

So yes, it's pricey; but it's not as expensive as the numbers you're using make it look.

Callum: yeah, but that 10% is a most important one, along with the fact that the military defence cabability is complete overkill, and it's actually *offensive* capability now..

---

by Stoo
"Percentage of U.S. military spending that would provide global population with basic necessities: 10%"

---

This would be a nice idea if one of the principle causes for the initial shortage wasn't corrupt regimes.

There are not many countries in the world which don't have the basic means to support their own populations. It is the scandalous misuse of those resources that creates poverty and famine.

For this kind of redistribution of spending to be effective, it would have to circumvent the existing political structures and consequently could represent as much of an interference in the internal running of a country as the military action currently taking place in the Gulf which you oppose.

Also, as Callum points out, defence spending in the west is predominantly spent within national borders which obviously generates jobs and injects money back into the economy.

The US is already in a precarious economic situation and this kind of redistribution would probably kick start another recession with all sorts of implications for the global economy.

---

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit... It's the only way to be sure.

---

The monies involved are almost always "fudged" anyway.

there was an interesting case a while back where the US government was paying $100 or something for items decsribed something along the lines of "manually operated, impact dependent, fastening devices". Or hammers to you and me, the £5 ones in Homebase. It all goes to fund the generation after the next generation of toys for the warmongers to play with.

Ben Rich stipulated in his memoirs that the budget for the B-2 Spirit bombers, at the time the US's top top secret "black project" was so high because it was covering the costs for even MORE secreter black projects and so on.


I'd personally feel a lot safer at night if no-one ever had the capability to harness that sort of destructive power. But I do feel safer knowing that the shroud of "mutually assured destruction" has so far (touch wood) prevented any nuclear exchange.