Can an international agreement prevent nuclear war?

[Ivan Seeking]

Some may recall what kept us and the old Soviet Union from starting WWIII was MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. We and the Soviets agree to maintain systems in such a way that if anyone launched a first strike, both countries were certain to be destroyed.

Does the world need a similar policy to help prevent a first strike; perhaps a formal UN declaration that anyone who uses a nuke is automatically targeted by all other countries? A death sentence for countries?

 

[pattylou]

No.

The world should strive to encourage humanity's *good* qualities. Living in fear, and threatening, is not part of that. I realize I sound pollyannish, but as long as we are in the "should" arena, I'll voice that opinion.

 

[cronxeh]

Well its basic human instinct to understand fear, but rarely is the good a prevalent encouragement

 

[Andre]

Well, during MAD, local conflicts were suppressed. And when it was over, there was the Balkan, Israel and the Middle East, Iraq, Somalia etc, again, at full impact. it occurs that MAD was good to keep those small conflicts down. But that is only perception; the main reason for conflict is enemy image building by those who have the desire to lead the flock. Mad only masks this. Better have dialogue and punch through the enemy image building process.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Future UN peacekeepers?
http://classics.www5.50megs.com/gort/day1.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, during MAD, local conflicts were suppressed. And when it was over, there was the Balkan, Israel and the Middle East, Iraq, Somalia etc, again, at full impact. it occurs that MAD was good to keep those small conflicts down. But that is only perception; the main reason for conflict is enemy image building by those who have the desire to lead the flock. Mad only masks this. Better have dialogue and punch through the enemy image building process.

What worries me is the time... Eventually I think we can and will get past warfare, but for the next century or so, any rogue nation could strike first with a nuclear weapon. It seems a near certainty.

 

[Zantra]

I think MAD is impossible for any small country that dared attack a G8 nation. or most likely any other nation for that matter. They'd lob one over, and we (or russia or china, etc) would send 5 or 10, thus assuring our survival and their destruction. I don't think worldwide MAD is a solution. Sooner or later someone will get trigger happy, or nervous- and then you're not just talking about 2 countries or a few billion people gone. That is exactly how you precipitate the end of the human race.

 

[Pengwuino]

hehe, it wasn't necessarily an "agreement"... more of a "oops, look what we've done".

What is the point of having such a perverse law? One rogue leader goes, gets a nuke, destroys another country's capital and runs off. Rest of world decimates his country while he escapes with his swiss bank account. Millions dead, real criminal walks free.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would only support a precision response. Nuking an entire country is not exceptable.
Take out just the WMD caches and then immediately take what ever actions are necessary to arrest the individuals responsable keeping violent conflict to an absolute minimum.

I'm actually currently reading a Greg Bear novel called Anvil of Stars with a similar scenario except on an intergalactic level.
In the novel Earth is invaded by a fleet of destructive selfreplicating robots. Another group of selfreplicating robots arrives to fend of the invasion and protect Earth. The second group of robots takes as many humans as possible off Earth in a space ark. Eventually the Earth is destroyed but the war against the invading robots is won. The second group of robots indentify themselves as The Benefactors and tell the humans that they will terraform Mars for them to resettle there.
They also the explain to the humans The Law. The Benefactors represent a group of civilizations (The UN) which formualted a universal law stating that any civilization which builds destructive selfreplicating robots and uses them against another civilization will be destroyed. The Benefactors (UN Coalition Forces) are to select a group of volunteers from the effected race and take them for this purpose. The Benefactors train these individuals for the purpose of seeking out, rendering judgement upon, and executing the responsable civilization. These individuals are given the training and the means and are expected to enact The Law themselves.

It's an interesting scenario. I'm anxious to see how it pans out.

 

[motai]

Does the world need a similar policy to help prevent a first strike; perhaps a formal UN declaration that anyone who uses a nuke is automatically targeted by all other countries? A death sentence for countries?

If that does occur, it would probably most likely be an unwritten and/or unspoken rule, one of those things where if it does happen, the first response will be a retalitory attack.

Targeting an entire country isn't really the best thing though, unless the country is so small that a single nuke will obliterate it anyway...

Nuclear warfare isn't the way to go though, unspeakable collateral damage.

 

[loseyourname]

Given how close we came to actually being mutually destroyed several times during the Cold War, I don't know that I'd like this policy were it to be enacted. I think I have to go with patty on this one. Heck, I'd be in favor of shooting all weapons grade plutonium into deep space for good.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Given how close we came to actually being mutually destroyed several times during the Cold War, I don't know that I'd like this policy were it to be enacted. I think I have to go with patty on this one. Heck, I'd be in favor of shooting all weapons grade plutonium into deep space for good.

Several times? Cuban Missile Crisis and when else? I lived through it all and that was the only time I was scared. Oh, there was that time the Soviets misinterpreted a meteor as an incoming missile and went to their defcon 3, but that wasn't really a threat, just an extended exercise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There were quite a number of false alarms. One of my old professors had a list of about sixty false alarms - flocks of geese, meteors, etc - that nearly caused a response. The last time that we talked, his biggest concern was that the automated systems threatening to come online would take us humans out of the decision making loop. I don't know if these systems were ever put into service.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, get a worldwide mandate to not only encourage the use of nuclear weapons, but to require it. If this doesn't cause world peace I don't know what will.

 

[loseyourname]

Several times? Cuban Missile Crisis and when else? I lived through it all and that was the only time I was scared. Oh, there was that time the Soviets misinterpreted a meteor as an incoming missile and went to their defcon 3, but that wasn't really a threat, just an extended exercise.

Well, maybe I'm overemphasizing some of the less dramatic incidents. Take that out, though, and my opinion of this doesn't change. Mutually assured destruction of the entire world doesn't seem to me like such a great idea.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There were quite a number of false alarms. One of my old professors had a list of about sixty false alarms - flocks of geese, meteors, etc - that nearly caused a response. The last time that we talked, his biggest concern was that the automated systems threatening to come online would take us humans out of the decision making loop. I don't know if these systems were ever put into service.

There is an interesting book called "The Hundredth Monkey" about the dangers of nuclear weapons that I read several years ago. It's filled with summery details about rather alarming false alarms and accidents that for the most part the public wasn't widely aware of.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, get a worldwide mandate to not only encourage the use of nuclear weapons, but to require it. If this doesn't cause world peace I don't know what will.

The reason it was called MAD...

Keep in mind that I don't mean to promote this as a good idea, but in fact it did work. It seems to me that whatever the response might be it should be well planned and devastating. Chaos could be more dangerous than even a bad policy. And it seems to me that we really need some kind of deterrent. The irony is that unless we kick the current idiots out of office, the US may be the greatest threat of all. Note that Bush wants Nukes for bunker busters.

 

[Smurf]

but in fact it did work.

What did work? as far as I'm aware it was never a rule or policy, but a mutually recognized threat. I don't really see how you can say that it worked just because it hasn't destroyed us yet.

Past tense is confusing too. MAD hasn't gone away. If the US nukes Russia we all have a few hours left to live. No alternatives. The only difference is that tensions have gone down and people have stopped wanting to blow each other up. Hense, closer to world peace. Initiating a mandatory rule of [nuclear] hostility between nations will not have any beneficial effect except possibly to throw the world into extreme panic every once in a while.

It seems to me that whatever the response might be it should be well planned and devastating.

What happens if a rogue nation gets on a nuke? What happens if it's a iron fisted dictatorship? Do we condemn the entire nation to death because of the actions of a few. Hell if you're afraid of terrorists getting their hands on nukes now will giving them the ability to start a nuclear holocaust make you happier? I should really say "the" nuclear holocaust, there's not going to be a second one. There won't be anyone left start one.

Don't even get me started on the environmental effects. Bottled water is already consumed more than fresh water in many places in the world. Dumping a few tons of radioactive rock into an ocean or even a lake will not help anyone at all.

Encouraging any kind of violence in any way, for any reason, will always lead to far more wrong than good. Encouraging nuclear war is pure MAD-ness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What did work? as far as I'm aware it was never a rule or policy, but a mutually recognized threat.

It was a policy. This for example is why we agreed not to put nukes in space. It would upset the balance of power.

I don't really see how you can say that it worked just because it hasn't destroyed us yet.

We got past the crisis. It may have been an overstatement to say that it worked, but we didn't have a nuclear war. We don't know that it didn't work.

Past tense is confusing too. MAD hasn't gone away.

Yes, it has. Our agreements with the Soviets no longer apply. There is allegedly still arms control, but this is more a matter of economics.

If the US nukes Russia we all have a few hours left to live.

I wouldn't be so sure.

What happens if a rogue nation gets on a nuke? What happens if it's a iron fisted dictatorship? Do we condemn the entire nation to death because of the actions of a few. Hell if you're afraid of terrorists getting their hands on nukes now will giving them the ability to start a nuclear holocaust make you happier? I should really say "the" nuclear holocaust, there's not going to be a second one. There won't be anyone left start one.

What is the deterrent against an attack by India or Pakistan against the other, besides each other? And what if one believes they have the upper hand and could win?

Don't even get me started on the environmental effects.

The point is to prevent war. Prove to me that no response, or many uncoordinated unilateral responses would be better. How do you know that this wouldn't escalate the situation to much greater levels?

 

[Smurf]

The point is to prevent war. Prove to me that no response, or many uncoordinated unilateral responses would be better. How do you know that this wouldn't escalate the situation to much greater levels?

The subject of discussion is an international agreement that, should anyone do something bad, we all get together and nuke them unanimously. And you're asking me to prove to you that that's bad?

I have no idea what to say to that. Prove that it's not?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The subject of discussion is an international agreement that, should anyone do something bad, we all get together and nuke them unanimously. And you're asking me to prove to you that that's bad?

I have no idea what to say to that. Prove that it's not?

The point is that we have no real deterrent, no multinational plan, and a lack of action could be even worse. If, for example, N Korea launches one nuke and gets away with it, why not launch two? And if we respond, will China or Russia get involved and attack us, for example. The problem is that once something like this starts it takes on a life of its own.

 

[Smurf]

The point is that we have no real deterrent, no multinational plan, and a lack of action could be even worse.

Is there an argument that it would be better if we did?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there an argument that it would be better if we did?

I need to defend the good sense of a planned response as opposed to chaos?

Is it your position that these decisions should be left to people like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

 

[jimmie]

I need to defend the good sense of a planned response as opposed to chaos?

The very thought of anything "was" chaos.

Somewhere along the line, an individual "thought" about a product that did not exist. Then, that individual "thought" that product should exist. Then, that individual "thought" about how to manufacture that product. Then, the product was manufactured.

It always has and always will start with human beings' ability to control their own actions; mass-production. And more precisely, the mass-production of thoughts.

Until all nations face the truth that there are some products that are not needed and should not be mass-produced, be it a nuclear warhead or a chocolate bar, and then agree to not mass-produce those products, anything that can be "thought" of can and will be mass-produced.

Until the nations can demonstrate that they can rule their own actions TOGETHER, anything goes!

That which is at the top flows downward. Without an example/benchmark being provided from the highest level of government as to what is right and what is not right, children grow up with the thought "i can do anything i want", and then they do anything they want, including becoming a suicide-bomber for a good "cause".

Should the nations choose to not demonstrate that they can rule their own actions together, and replace the chaos at the top with order, the planet and all of its inhabitants are mutually assured destruction.

 

[Smurf]

I need to defend the good sense of a planned response as opposed to chaos?

Planned response is fine. What you need to defend is the good sense of launching nukes at people.

 

[oldunion]

I support MAD. Its like a fraction, it just reduces itself until it is equally destroyed like 4/4->1...Lets say a rogue manages to set of a missile and leave the country, the missile launching area of that country should be nuked-the threat is now gone. I think its all stupid though, i hate radiation and bio-chemical. What ever happened to good old fashioned carpet bombing?

I don't know whos read Titor, but the post war world view is in line with MAD. Anyone who launches a nuke will be unilaterally destroyed by everyone else in the world, no more war is tolerated.

 

[Smurf]

no more war is tolerated.

except when it's condoned by most of the world.

 

[devil-fire]

the other solution is to disarm everyone and use more conventional force to prevent rearming. one of the main purposes of the UN is something to this effect but without the original disarming part unfortunately, i think its called the non-proliferation treaty. i could be mistaken though

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Planned response is fine. What you need to defend is the good sense of launching nukes at people.

Well, first of all, if there is a rogue attack that hits any state possesing nuclear weapons, if it is something that can be traced, especially in real time, something lika a missile launch from N Korea or Iran, a nuclear response is a near certainty.

Next, I don't need to defend anything. I was simply throwing out for discussion a concept used to prevent nuclear war in years past: Use nukes and you die.

Keep in mind that I don't mean to promote this as a good idea but in fact it did work. It seems to me that whatever the response might be it should be well planned and devastating.

 

[Smurf]

Whatever. Look, no good can come of this. All of these Collective/Organized violence plans never amount to any good.

The people who are most likely to use nukes anyway (US, Russia, China) arn't going to be deterred by this anyway since actually nuking them will result in a holocaust and the eventual extinction of the human race and everyone knows it. The only people this would deter are the people who 1. Have a very small arsenal and/or no effective delivery system, 2. No larger power protecting it, 3. a target in mind that is strong enough a nuke is needed, but weak enough they don't have nukes of their own and invaluable enough they won't be protected by someone else - but also valuable enough to make it worth the effort. It's a pretty small target really, and having an international mandate to respond to nukes with more nukes is NOT going to save any lives.