Why superpower are so interested in nonproliferation of WMD

Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Aug 2014, 5:26 am

Why superpower are so interested in nonproliferation of Nuclear weapon, while the don't reducing their own stockpile it hypocrisy.

I beet if smaller countries have nuclear weapon of their own nuclear weapon, the "SuperPowers", would be reluctant of use their own ground troops on foreign soil.

For example Russia would certainly not melding in Ukraine, if Ukraine has it's own 1500 thermonuclear that they have in early 90's after dissolution of Soviet Union



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,246
Location: temperate zone

27 Aug 2014, 6:30 am

I was wondering about that the other day: did they divide up the nukes between the former Soviet Republics when the USSR broke up (like some of the other Soviet assets like the navy)? Or did all the nukes go to the Russian Republic? I guess you just answered my question- the Russians got them all-even the nukes originally based in other republics like the Ukraine.

If a small to mid sized country starts to play around with a nuclear program- it has the opposite effect. It tends to INVITE the superpowers to attack you. Thats what happened with Iraq, and if Romney had been elected - we would be occupying Iran now for that reason.

But yes- if you become a solidly established nuclear power-with like 1500 warheads- the bullies probably would not bother you. And I suspect Putin might not be supporting insurgents in the Ukraine if the Ukraine still had its Soviet era nuclear warheads.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

27 Aug 2014, 11:49 am

The problem with proliferation of WMD is that they would sooner or later end up in the hands of terrorists. Groups like Hamas would likely not hold back from detonating a small nuke in the centre of Israel where it would kill the most number of Jews. Similarly Al Quida or ISIS would undoubtedly detonate nukes in America or European cities. At the moment there is a reasonable balance in the world where the more responsible nations who hold nukes don't use them for fear of nuclear retaliation. Small unstable countries or terrorists aren't deterred by MAD (mutually assured destruction).


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

27 Aug 2014, 1:19 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
I was wondering about that the other day: did they divide up the nukes between the former Soviet Republics when the USSR broke up (like some of the other Soviet assets like the navy)? Or did all the nukes go to the Russian Republic? I guess you just answered my question- the Russians got them all-even the nukes originally based in other republics like the Ukraine.

If a small to mid sized country starts to play around with a nuclear program- it has the opposite effect. It tends to INVITE the superpowers to attack you. Thats what happened with Iraq, and if Romney had been elected - we would be occupying Iran now for that reason.

But yes- if you become a solidly established nuclear power-with like 1500 warheads- the bullies probably would not bother you. And I suspect Putin might not be supporting insurgents in the Ukraine if the Ukraine still had its Soviet era nuclear warheads.


Until you actually have nukes, then you're untouchable. Giving up your weapons, seems to invite attack too.

There are a lot of states that could go nuclear if they want to, they just are under the umbrella of another nuclear state. Like Japan could become one with in 6 months to a year, Saudi Arabia could become one easily with the help Pakistan, Europe obviously as well.

If Ukraine still had nukes, it is unlikely the situation would of ever played out the way it did. Russia would of never allowed Banderas freaks to come to any power,



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Aug 2014, 1:42 pm

Jacoby wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes, it is unlikely the situation would of ever played out the way it did. Russia would of never allowed Banderas freaks to come to any power,


Yes there are nuts, before WW2 Poland controlled west part of Ukraine, but than Poles was minority, but in huge numbers especially Lwów now Lviv, when Hitler and Hitler made a treaty, the Nazi took west part Russia took east part, and incorporated some of us Eastern borderlands to Ukrainian SSR. Stephan Bandera followers hated Poles, Russians, and Jews a like they want Ukraine for the Ukrainian only, so when Hitler put in action Barbarossa Plan, to attack soviet Union (Hiss Ally). The Banderas was more than willing exterminate all minorities in Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_ ... rn_Galicia
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraines-n ... ii/5373773



Sigbold
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,930
Location: Netherlands

27 Aug 2014, 10:17 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There are a lot of states that could go nuclear if they want to, they just are under the umbrella of another nuclear state. Like Japan could become one with in 6 months to a year, Saudi Arabia could become one easily with the help Pakistan, Europe obviously as well.


Both France and the UK have nukes. But the British nukes are under USA control.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

28 Aug 2014, 6:41 am

It also takes an enormous investment in security and early warning to avoid mishaps or theft. And even then the superpowers have had failures. Less developed forces are just that much less likely to properly control them.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

28 Aug 2014, 6:54 am

simon_says wrote:
It also takes an enormous investment in security and early warning to avoid mishaps or theft. And even then the superpowers have had failures. Less developed forces are just that much less likely to properly control them.


It was a fluke America didn't accidentally nuke one of its own cities in 1961:

In 1961, the US almost detonated two nuclear bombs over North Carolina by accident


Quote:
In North Carolina, the two atomic bombs were released after a B-52 airplane carrying the payload went into a tailspin during a routine test flight ? one of the bombs eventually landed""It would have been bad news ? in spades."" in a tree, and the other in a meadow, The Guardian says. The document says the bombs should have detonated ? parachutes were deployed and triggers were armed, but one low-voltage switch failed to activate as it should have, preventing what would have been devastating and widespread damage


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.