Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General

[Cirion Spellbinder]

The Question: Assume you are a nation. Nuclear technology has been invented and is distributed among several notable powers and their allies. Should your nation acquire these nuclear arms also?

I was talking to someone about nuclear arms, and they stated that nations should not own nuclear arms, even if other nations have them. I tried to explain to him why this is an illogical course of action, as it leaves the nation unarmed and thus susceptible to coercion. I then talked about how M.A.D. prevents nations from using nuclear arms if other nations have them, but they still stood by their point. What do you think?

(also this can be applied to guns or weapons in general at a smaller scale)

[Kyron]

I feel paranoia is not a mature, or logical reason to spend money, or allow your nation to possess lethal* weapons. I think investing in other means of defense are much more humane and viable. I am not saying that pacifism is the right option. I feel that having the ability to prevent nuclear weapons from being used is a much better tactic than trying to "scare off" others.

I can't see why a nation with nuclear weapons, would be less likely to use them, just because there are others who also possess them. At the same time, I can't see why someone who wanted to kill another person would stop just because others have weapons. Which is definitely the case if you look at statistics for gun-related violence/homocides in countries in which firearms are legal.

*Of course, nearly anything can be lethal. However, I find there is a ratio of how lethal and how easy it is to use that we need to decide on.

On a side note: This is often an argument made by Americans/American-Media, which seems a little hypocritical, considering America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons... Twice.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I can't see why a nation with nuclear weapons, would be less likely to use them, just because there are others who also possess them.

If nation possesses nuclear arms and despises country who also has nuclear arms, nation will be deterred by the threat of retaliation- which would lead to annihilation for both nation and country. Even if nation has fallout shelters, it is unlikely that the people of nation could ever recover, considering that the surface would be obliterated and contaminated with radiation for long periods of time. If nation or country has missile defenses, then there would be a reasonable chance that one could survive. However, the threat of nuclear annihilation itself and the fact that missile defense systems aren't perfect could still be enough to deter one nation from assaulting another. The one major flaw I can see with this is that if country was strictly pacifistic or had significantly less nuclear arms, then nation would not be deterred by country's nuclear arms.

If you would like to further look into it, read this article about M.A.D. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_as ... estruction

[brimstoneSalad]

I feel that having the ability to prevent nuclear weapons from being used is a much better tactic than trying to "scare off" others.

Absolutely, but that's also a much more advanced technology, which is both more expensive, and requires much more time in research and development to make happen.
You may not have read any criticism of the whole concept (it's very contentious)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mis ... story.html
Basically, for being almost useless.
The most advanced nuclear missile defense is only viable against very primitive nations with very primitive missile technology.


The best defense against a nuclear threat is and remains the ability to destroy the attacker in retaliation.
This is a shitty situation. And it doesn't work well against insane Islamic extremists.

Actually, we can do it now with conventional weapons too. Nuclear is not even necessary anymore with some of the more advanced (and very expensive) explosives.

[Kyron]

If you would like to further look into it, read this article about M.A.D. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_as ... estruction

Yes, I understand the concept. However, it relies on the assumption that the attacking country is sane. It's a method of "defense" that is all psychological and based on general human-nature and paranoia. As brinstoneSalad pointed out, there are certain people, such as islamic extremists, who if put in that position, would most probably not act accordingly.

Absolutely, but that's also a much more advanced technology, which is both more expensive, and requires much more time in research and development to make happen.

So, do I have a budget here in this hypothetical scenario?
According to the article you provided, the US have spent $40-billion since 2010 in researching, building and testing this anti-warhead missile.

However, from 1940-1996, the US has spent $5.5 - $5.8 trillion on its nuclear weapons program. ($98.2 - $103.5 billion a year). Are you really telling me that it's too/more expensive to fund defense over offense? Though, I will point out that "only seven percent ($409 billion) was spent on developing, testing, and building the actual bombs and warheads." - However, my point still stands.

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/co ... r-weapons/

[Cirion Spellbinder]

As brimstoneSalad pointed out, there are certain people, such as islamic extremists, who if put in that position, would most probably not act accordingly.

Huh... I suppose brimstoneSalad and you are correct!

So, do I have a budget in this hypothetical scenario?

It would probably be good to have one. I don't want to pull a number out of my ass though. Any suggestions for the budget?

[brimstoneSalad]

However, from 1940-1996, the US has spent $5.5 - $5.8 trillion on its nuclear weapons program. ($98.2 - $103.5 billion a year). Are you really telling me that it's too/more expensive to fund defense over offense? Though, I will point out that "only seven percent ($409 billion) was spent on developing, testing, and building the actual bombs and warheads." - However, my point still stands.

Those programs are better compared to the Manhattan project, not to the sum total of our mature nuclear weapons programs. Defense is still in its infancy, and undergoing tests to try to get reliable results.

Only once you have reliable results can you really put things into full production.

Eventually, the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$ 2 billion (equivalent to US$ 23 billion in 2007 dollars).

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/h ... n-project/

From this, a little over half of the cost to develop the nuclear bomb.

And we still don't know how deep the well is, with regard to the total cost of practical missile defense.

I'm in favor of missile defense too, but don't imagine it's cheaper than just blowing things up.
Also, regarding costs of the delivery mechanism (which is more substantial), ICBMs, that's shared technology with rocket science in general, and the space program. Missile intercept is more complicated.

[Kyron]

It would probably be good to have one. I don't want to pull a number out of my ass though. Any suggestions for the budget?

I don't think it's fairly necessary. Though we could choose a real country's budget and decide which percentage could be reasonably allocated to nuclear-defense/offense without effecting the citizens of that country.
Either way. It seems that you'd still need an infinite amount of money to spend on nuclear arms if you were to comply with M.A.D. psychology. It becomes an endless race to either be equal or have more nuclear weapons than the other. A defense system would most likely be pretty finite.

And we still don't know how deep the well is, with regard to the total cost of practical missile defense.

True. However my argument is that, rather than trying to keep up with an "arms race", it'd be more practical to have the ability to protect your people from those weapons. Not have the ability to cause harm to even more (innocent) people in retaliation.

I'm in favor of missile defense too, but don't imagine it's cheaper than just blowing things up.

Of course. It's much more complicated and takes a lot more research to intercept a nuclear missile. But I can't see how funding research into this feat and developing an anti-nuclear program would be more expensive than the ongoing, ever costly, "we need more nuclear weapons, to make sure that we're the one's in control."

Also, there are many other Missile Defense systems being developed than the one in that article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_d ... le_defense

[brimstoneSalad]

You don't actually need a larger stockpile than the other army. You just need enough to destroy them; which isn't actually that much.

Russia and the U.S. built up unnecessarily large nuclear stockpiles; much more than needed to merely assure mutual destruction. Even having a dozen of so would be enough to ruin pretty much everybody's day.

[Kyron]

You don't actually need a larger stockpile than the other army. You just need enough to destroy them; which isn't actually that much.

At that point, would it not become more of a "who presses the button first"?