(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

Hope is a fanzine to raise money for bushfire relief in Victoria. Check it out.

It's still a mad MAD world, but for how much longer? That's from 7 February - here's one from yesterday: Nuclear agenda draws scrutiny: Obama to seek large cuts in US, Russian warheads

Comments

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

MAD hasn't been Western doctrine for a long time now.

While I do, in principle, support nuclear arms reduction, I'm not thrilled with Russia's apparent political or strategic trends, and so am not a fan of the US changing its posture to suit the Russians. Paying people to be your friend works for just as long as they want your money more than anything else. Also, a policy of paying for their friendship - or at least neutrality - indicates an unwillingness to confront them over non-critical issues. Like, say, interference in the internal affairs of third countries. Russia isn't playing from the "let's all be nice" playbook. They never have in the past, and their current chairman prime minister seems to be the old boss with new skills.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I never know quite how much I should be worried about nuclear weapons these days. Gareth Evans reckons the current dangers are "nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran using weapons deliberately; proliferation to Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia; and increased access to materials if nuclear energy became more widely embraced. That poorly secured weapons could fall into terrorists' hands was also a threat." So if that's right, the threat isn't the end of the world, but the end of Israel or Washington DC or London. OK, now I am worried.

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Proliferation to countries which are not liberal democracies is always an issue.

It's hard to judge the threat of North Korea because their behaviour appears irrational and is hard to predict. (One way in which they are reliable is that they will do literally anything for foreign currency. So they are a significant proliferation concern.)

As far as weapons use is concerned, the issue is terror-supporting or terror-tolerant states, or those involved in local arms races. Iran and Syria are particular concerns, given both their political postures and their evident commitment towards seeking nuclear weapons. Nations like Saudi Arabia are a concern only in that (1) they want to maintain regional strength, especially if a rival like Iran gets the bomb, and (2) their ostensible opposition to terror groups and commitment to democratic values is a thin crust over a quite different filling.

Russia is quite a different kind of threat. I don't seriously think that they now, or probably ever, seriously considered a surprise nuclear annihilation of the US. Russia does have a cultural history of paranoia, so they certainly worried that the west was going to annihilate them in the past. How much of that remains I don't know. What they are willing to do is to use the implicit threat of nuclear exchange to neutralise opposition to lower-level actions, up to and including conventional warfare. That threat is a tool in their foreign policy toolbox, like choking energy supplies to Europe or central Asia, or systematic hacking of government internet assets. Nobody wants to upset the Bear. This much is true again, as it was in the Cold War.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... without wanting to play down the threat those nations may represent, I'm not too sure liberal democracies ought to have the bomb either. We are, after all, the only ones who've ever actually used it; and I'm sorry to say that our history since then has been marked by belligerence and deceit. (Plus, of course, one of those less enlightened states might nick some of the stuff we have lying around.) But anyway, if Russia and the West do agree to reduce their stockpiles, wouldn't that usefully remove one of the Bear's claws / tools / metaphors? :)

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Liberal democracies are not perfect. The US remains the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon against its enemies. In its defence the cultural acceptance that nuclear weapons are too terrible to be used did not exist in '45, the US was participating in a war where aerial bombing of population centres was already being used as a tactic, and Japan appeared to be resistant any other means of bringing the war to a quick and/or inexpensive (in terms of casualties, for the Americans at least) end.

Regardless, now that the nuclear cat is out of the bag, whether or not nuclear-holding countries should have the bomb is moot; unilateral disarmament in any nuclear-armed country is vastly improbable, and nuclear-armed countries are by definition effectively immune to being forced to disarm. (That's partly why so many non-nuclear armed countries want to join the club; it effectively makes you immune to invasion.)

Of course our (the club of liberal democracies) history has been marked by belligerence and deceit. The same is true of most countries. Those countries which are exceptions are few and generally their fates are decided by other countries - they are prey or protect species. Existing in the international community is like visiting a rough bar. You might be fine, especially if you're with a mate who the other patrons know won't take crap. If you're on your own, and perceived as weak, well...

I don't think I agree that we should deny ourselves otherwise useful tools on the basis that bad people might steal them. If that were true we would not permit police to be armed. Yes, bad people might well steal weapons, either from police or nuclear-armed countries. But countries do tend to protect their nukes as well as the local version of Fort Knox.

The unfortunate thing about nuclear weapons is that they are so terrible that one only needs enough warheads to make a single attack possible. The US and Russia have about 30,000 warheads between them (that number seems high to me). A dozen constitutes a believable attack force against most countries. Against the original nuclear club members dozens, hundreds or more would be necessary to have any chance to prevent a retaliatory strike. I don't see Russia or the US going below 1,000 warheads.

Finally, my original point about liberal democracies is based on their greater sensitivity to electoral opinion. (Which is also why these countries are so vulnerable to terrorism). The "lone looney leader" scenario is much more unlikely in, for example, the United Kingdom than it is in Syria... where the current leader is ruler-for-life having inherited the seat from Dad. Countries without liberal democracies pose more risk because their political decision-making may not be based on what we consider rationality and humanity.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Countries without liberal democracies pose more risk because their political decision-making may not be based on what we consider rationality and humanity.

Sadly, the political decision-making of liberal democracies is frequently not based on rationality or humanity, either. You and I probably agree that democracy is the best form of government so far devised; but in our lifetimes, democracies have engaged in needless wars of conquest; the toppling of democratically elected governments; torture, assassination, the flouting of our own laws, etc etc. When it comes to WMD, they may be somewhat safer in our hands, but they are certainly not safe in our hands. IMHO our advantages are more to do with stability, wealth, and (as you point out) electoral opinion, which can act as a brake on the worst excesses of government, than greater morality or sanity.

But I wonder if, precisely because of our system of government, we're the ones best placed to lead a process of global disarmament - to start it, to organise it, to keep it going.

(Say, Bashar Al-Assad and George W. Bush should get together and swap notes. But I digress.)

Generalities aside: am I right in thinking that a drop from 30,000 warheads to, say, 1,000 warheads would be the most amazing progress made on the issue in our lifetimes, if not ever? (What proportion of the human race could be killed, and what proportion of the planet laid waste, with just 1,000 bombs?)

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

When it comes to WMD, they may be somewhat safer in our hands, but they are certainly not safe in our hands.

Stipulated. Again, the same is true of any weapon. Furthermore, WMD have been intentionally used in warfare or atrocities repeatedly in various places since 1945; almost always chemical weapons. Liberal democracies, despite their own list of outrages, have not been responsible. (I may be drawing too long a bow here; I can not now think of any examples.)

But I wonder if, precisely because of our system of government, we're the ones best placed to lead a process of global disarmament - to start it, to organise it, to keep it going.

So who is?

Bashar Al-Assad and George W. Bush should get together and swap notes. Right after Assad is defeated in a free and fair election and quietly steps aside for his successor.

Generalities aside: a reduction in total warheads from 30,000 to 1,000 it would represent significant progress, in that the amount of potential damage from an all-out exchange would be less if the global arsenal was 1,000 bombs rather than 30,000. I think it would be the biggest reduction, in both percentages and absolute figures, since the start of the nuclear age. It would change the global nuclear war scenario from potentially world-ending to merely probably civilisation-ending. Of course, the arms reduction process has been compared to two men standing in a basement waist-deep in petrol arguing about the number of matches each has. 1,000 bombs is enough to end life on Earth as we know it. I'd be happier with a maximum arsenal of, say, 100 weapons per nation. Enough to obliterate an enemy, too little to blast us all back to the stone age. I'd be even happier if we made more and faster progress about getting off this rock.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

So who is?

Stipulated. We are! :)

I can't think of an example of a democracy using a WMD since the end of WWII either, but this certainly isn't because we weren't prepared to, as a quick poke around Wikipedia will show - the West was developing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons until recent decades.

In the long term, IMHO, even those 100 weapons each are too many - in obliterating an enemy, a nation would also be poisoning a great chunk of the planet. (This is putting aside the illegality of targetting civilian populations, and indeed the illegality of using weapons destructive to the environment.)

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

This is fun :)

Don't equate preparedness with guilt. Again, cops have guns; that does not make them prepared to be murderers. It makes them prepared. Possession of chemical weapons can make an opponent avoid using chemical weapons, to avoid being on the receiving end. It's easier to keep a few canisters of CN-20 than it is to keep your whole army in rubber suits for the duration. The US has in recent years disavowed both chemical and biological weapons, but they are wealthy enough to have both an extensive supply of protective gear, and to be reasonably assured of completing military objectives by conventional means. Less wealthy countries must consider cheaper options to avoid having their own troops gassed by the enemy.

I agree that 100 weapons each is enough to hurt the planet a lot. But it's way better than 30,000 total or 1,000 each, and it's a number so small we're unlikely to ever actually see it achieved.

Intentionally targeting civilian populations is indeed illegal now, though prosecuting allegations is tricky. But survival takes precedence over lawful behaviour; a country, or a ruling regime, convinced that its own annihilation may be at hand may well consider the nuclear option as the only means of escaping destruction.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Don't equate preparedness with guilt.

Not guilt; willingness to use such weapons. Even in circumstances where annihilation isn't the alternative.

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Willingness indeed. This is the basic essence of deterrence, from the security-alert person walking down the dark alley to a head of state with nuclear launch codes. If you are prepared to fight, you are less likely to need to do so. Being unprepared to fight makes you prey. The arrival of the 21st century has not changed this basic truth.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

fight != nuke

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Fighting covers a very wide range of behaviour, from a shove to a nuke.

If you would have peace, prepare for war. Not so that you can start it, but so that others may be deterred from doing so. Otherwise you are entirely dependent on the good character of other humans as to your own defense.