A detached view on WMD's

[Sasha]

So I know the arguments for preventing a dictatorial regime from getting Weapons of mass Destruction. Lets leave those aside for a moment.

On what moral grounds, assuming all nations have equal rights, can we legitimatly prevent nations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Now I realise that realisticaly we can't grant equal right to nations that are infact quite different, unstable dictatorships are clearly differrent than well established democracies.

But if we were to suppose that all nations possed an equal right to defend themselves, would that not result in the all nations being allowed to develope WMD's for that purpose. Sure we might not be able to trust them, but again, using the doctorines of western law they would be innocent untill proven guilty and so simply being a threat would not be a reason to deprive them of this right.

One could further argue that unlike citizens in nations, countries do not have an impartial, reliable police force to insure that they will be protected, nore the justice system to support it. Therefore because nations are left to their own devices, and because some nations already have these tools, it is reasonable for all nations to be allowed to develop them. For example, Iran is not that far from Packistan, Packistan does have nukes, shouldnt Iran be allowed to develop them for its own defense?

Within that context, I think we'd be forced to say yes.

[SVMc]

Why not agree that the posession and development of WMD should be a crime against humanity, to which the administration of any nation possessing or developing WMD should be held liable?

Endorsing the nuclear proliferation argument has been shot down by almost every security specalist. Standard arguments include the fact that sates with WMD face hugely increased security costs both on the material and military side of development and distribution. Proliferation is prone to result in global marshall law... the danger is not so much the nations possing the WMD but what non-governmental agencies could access large supplies. Witness the concerns following the collapse of the USSR.

Non Proliferation Treaty Article

[Sasha]

How is simple possesion a crime against humanity? I can readily agree there use would be. But simply having them, (which is kinda silly without using them) does no actual harm to humanity. nobody dies, nobody's rights are infinged. I dont think we can just call anything a crime against humanity unless it meets some kind of criteria

[tman_ndsu08]

The problem is the power differential that's caused. If country A has 5000 bombs and country B only has 3000, what's to stop country A from taking everything over?

[Sasha]

Sure, but that problem exists with army sizes to.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: SVMc Why not agree that the posession and development of WMD should be a crime against humanity, to which the administration of any nation possessing or developing WMD should be held liable?

Well, that sounds reasonable. "Who is gonna enforce it" seems to be the question. It would have to be a nation with WMD, huh? Or else a supranational body with armed enforcement agencies. How would that work?

Overall, I'd say Sasha's argument seems more reasonable. Why not just say every nation has a right to decide how to defend themselves? I like Kucinich's idea: A Cabinet level Department of Peace.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Sasha Sure, but that problem exists with army sizes to.

Armies and bombs are completely different.

You don't risk killing any of your men with a big bomb.

It's *much* cheaper than sending a million men to invade a country.

etc.

[SVMc]

Quote by: SVMc Why not agree that the posession and development of WMD should be a crime against humanity, to which the administration of any nation possessing or developing WMD should be held liable?

I must remember to post humour quotes.... no, this idea would not seriously work... yes, it has several serious flaw most notably:

Quote by: Sasha nobody's rights are infinged.

and

Quote by: PatrickHenry "Who is gonna enforce it" seems to be the question. It would have to be a nation with WMD, huh?

However the reasons for non-proliferation still hold, access to WMD is not an issue of some countries have them therefore all countries have them percisely for the reason that tman_ndsu08 stated:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The problem is the power differential that's caused. If country A has 5000 bombs and country B only has 3000, what's to stop country A from taking everything over?

However, in a situation of nuclear proliferation, it is not the countries with the most WMD that we should worry about.... it is those with the least.

Also, during the cold war we have discovered percisely what an arms race is capable of doing to the economy of the countries that are loosing the race... and from my perspective more importantly how it impacts the citizens of those countries.

I would have loved to have posted this as a graph but I couldn't figure out how, this is an interesting site that has a good chart on the cost of the Tools of War Vs. The Tools of Peace. http://www.jrpc.org/Issues/Business%20of%20War.htm scroll down to see the chart. Here's another good one Cost Of War

[Sasha]

its crazy when the numbers are put in that perspective

[tman_ndsu08]

Countries with small numbers of bombs would never fire on a country with large numbers because they know they would get anhilated.

[tusaki]

With nukes, all it takes is 1.

and to answer the question from the original post. There is no moral reason to prevent others from attaining nuclear weapons. But there is a gigantic practical one. There is a theory that democracies do not attack each other. the "Democratic Peace". I mean, there wouldn't be much alarm if Belgium acquired a nuke. or Poland. or Iceland. However, when a non-democratic country acquires one, who knows what will happen? What if the grand ayatholla of iran decides that the world is a blasphemy to god and it must be destroyed? What if a group of fanatics with such a belief steals a nuke? or just the plutonium to make a dirty bomb?

Moral reasons only exist for a politician to publicly justify his actions.

[tman_ndsu08]

It only takes one to kill lots of people, yes. So what?

The country with more bombs can kill more.

[tusaki]

Sure, but if I have one bomb and you have 10000000, I can still kill your captical city. so for our bargaining position it doesn't matter all that much.

[tman_ndsu08]

So a country suddenly becomes completly incapacitated once it's capital city is destoyed?! This isn't a computer game.

[tusaki]

I dont think the leader of a country which allows his capitial to be destroyed will be a leader for long. As you said, this isn't a computer game: with a nuke, people are probably not willing to sacrifice any main city in order to "win". Therefore, it makes little difference how many nukes you have.

[tman_ndsu08]

No one wants to die, but that's what happens in war.

There is quite a large difference in having only 1 of your major cities destroyed vs. having your entire counrty anihilated.

[SVMc]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Countries with small numbers of bombs would never fire on a country with large numbers because they know they would get anhilated.

The theory is not that the country with the smallest number of bombs would fire on a country with a large number of bombs to avoid anhiliation. What is generally agreed on in deterrance theory is that deterrance only works when both sides are able to keep up a relatively equal arms race.

If country A knows that country B has about an equal chance of destroying country A as B does A then we have MAD (mutually assured destruction) which leads to a realatived cease fire since both sides are assured destruction.

However if country A has all the power and could destory country B in a matter of a few minutes.... but country B only has one shot, it's been shown that MAD doesn't apply, and people (especially large groups of people don't like oppression - of any kind - even an imagined super deterrant kind). This means that there is more chance that if country B thought it was loosing a conflict to country A... and country B reasoned it would be destoryed in any event, then country B is more likely to use it's 1 WMD than county A is to use it's 5,000.

The idea here is that calculating collatoral damage on a mass scale is unacceptable foreign policy. That's why nuclear proliferation does not work.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SVMc The theory is not that the country with the smallest number of bombs would fire on a country with a large number of bombs to avoid anhiliation. What is generally agreed on in deterrance theory is that deterrance only works when both sides are able to keep up a relatively equal arms race. If country A knows that country B has about an equal chance of destroying country A as B does A then we have MAD (mutually assured destruction) which leads to a realatived cease fire since both sides are assured destruction. However if country A has all the power and could destory country B in a matter of a few minutes.... but country B only has one shot, it's been shown that MAD doesn't apply, and people (especially large groups of people don't like oppression - of any kind - even an imagined super deterrant kind). This means that there is more chance that if country B thought it was loosing a conflict to country A... and country B reasoned it would be destoryed in any event, then country B is more likely to use it's 1 WMD than county A is to use it's 5,000. The idea here is that calculating collatoral damage on a mass scale is unacceptable foreign policy. That's why nuclear proliferation does not work.

I find it highly unlogical that the ruler of any country would risk the entire and complete destruction of his country just to destroy a small part of a much more powerful country.

That would be like saying that Gary Coleman would accept being viciously murdered just to have the chance to kick Mike Tyson in the shin.

[SVMc]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I find it highly unlogical that the ruler of any country would risk the entire and complete destruction of his country just to destroy a small part of a much more powerful country.

It may seem illogical at first, but it's a very well know theory in international relations, usually called "Rational Choice or Deterrance Theory" If you can get your hands on a copy of International Relations In the Post_Cold War Era by Mark Charlton, it has an excellent description of how nuclear theory and deterrance theory work.

The best example is the example of the prisnors dilemma. This is a simulation game that is used in think tanks all the time, and tends to play out in real life. You have two prisnors who have committed a crime, there is not much evidence so the prisnors are put in separate rooms, and each is told if he confesses first he will go free, while his partner will face 10 years in prison.

The rational choice is for neither prisnor to say anything. Since without any testimony neither prisnor will face jail time. However as the detectives (or whom ever) tell each prisnor that the other one is confession, they will tell each prisnor the details and evidence that they do have and tell them they got this information from the other prisnor. In the majority of tests, and actual cases, both prisnors will talk and try to rat out their partner. Depending on the sequence this usually results in both prisnors facing the maximum sentence or a slightly reduced sentence.

The whole point of rational choice theory is to show that in a deterrance situation, what is rationale to outside observers is not rationale to those involved when they do not have all of the information.

Here's a link to an article on Rational Choice and Deterrance. http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/ratchoc.html

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tusaki when a non-democratic country acquires one, who knows what will happen?

Don't discount the bloodthirsty nature of democracies. The only nation to nuke another is the United States of America...