Should Any State That Can Build or Acquire Nuclear Weapons Be Allowed To Have Them

[rgray222]

I think it is worth discussing whether any country capable of developing nuclear weapons should be permitted to possess them. Additionally, should nations be allowed to sell or give nuclear weapons to countries that don't have the technology to make them? The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) serves as the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation plan. It recognizes five nuclear-weapon states

• France
• Russia
• United Kingdom
• USA
• China

Of course, the world knows that North Korea, Pakistan and India have nukes and quietly believes that the Israeli's have nuclear weapons, but it has never been confirmed or denied.

This treaty (NPT) obligates them not to transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. In return, non-nuclear states agree to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons, while all parties commit to pursuing nuclear disarmament and cooperating on peaceful nuclear energy initiatives. The NPT has achieved near-universal adherence, the only states not signing on are:

• India
• Pakistan
• Israel
• South Sudan

Can countries leave the NPT easily?
Countries cannot leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) easily, but it is possible under certain conditions. The NPT includes provisions that allow a state to withdraw from the treaty after giving three months' prior notice to the United Nations Security Council and other parties. Such withdrawals are typically motivated by perceived threats or disagreements with the treaty's terms. Notably, North Korea announced its withdrawal in 2003, which led to significant international concerns and consequences. However, the process is complex and can have significant diplomatic and security implications.

What started me thinking about this is that a post was made on the Israel vs Palestine/Lebanon/Iran/Yemen/Syria: a New Middle East War thread that said that Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, was considering transferring a nuclear weapon to Iran and the post below.

What are your thoughts?

[rgray222]

Kim makes constitutional change that will fire a nuclear weapon if Kim is killed

The constitutional change reportedly came after the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials during joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran.


North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the Ministry of National Defense on the occasion of the 76th anniversary of the founding of the Korean People's Army in Pyongyang,
North Korea in this picture released on February 9, 2024 by the Korean Central News Agency. Photo: KCNA via REUTERS/File Photo

North Korea has revised its constitution to mandate an automatic retaliatory nuclear strike if leader Kim Jong-un is assassinated by a foreign adversary, reports The Telegraph.

The constitutional change reportedly came after the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials during joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran.

The amendment was adopted during the first session of North Korea's 15th Supreme People's Assembly, which opened on 22 March in Pyongyang. South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) disclosed the revision during a briefing to senior government officials on Thursday.

Full Stroy: https://www.tbsnews.net/world/north-...report-1434411

[Bill Ryan]

A thought experiment.

If Palestine had had a nuclear weapon, wouldn't that have protected and saved several hundred thousand Palestinian men, women and children from slaughter?

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A thought experiment.

If Palestine had had a nuclear weapon, wouldn't that have protected and saved several hundred thousand Palestinian men, women and children from slaughter?

No.

Because both parties would not have used the currency of the nuclear threat to control hostilities and likely both would have used nuclear weapon[s] against each other. MAD works for primary nations like u.s. / russia et al; but it also could work for smaller nations probably even more-so as totality of destruction would be inevitable and more complete.

The psychology of leaders of nations is a key component of consideration regarding the currency of the nuclear threat. The only winning move still: is not to play. The american formula for leadership is too varied that not all presidents are created equal in the short 'term(s)' vs. longer terms of other nations. Where once america is a senior and responsible advisor post WWII; the new and modern america does not wield this status or command this respect. Where the russian counterpart over years of service kind of lends a perspective of continuity in psychology. This means the devil you know might always be better than the one you don't know.

I do not think you can put the genie back into the bottle and and remove nuclear weapons from any theater. Therefore, if tensions can be mitigated with MAD situations like pakistan/india or u.s./russia or other tense and vicious enemies, then the threat currency has value even is the weapons are never used.

But what I have seen in my travels abroad is a state of less emotional control than more with some various cultures. What this means is I think some of these places will get fed up enough with their feuds to actually pull the trigger and the world will learn again of the atrocity and overall lost of life and economy and the threat currency will regain its value until the next time.

So in conclusion any state that can safely meet the global standard to protect itself with particularly the nuclear threat currency should indeed do it since the weapons are never going away anyway.

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A thought experiment.

If Palestine had had a nuclear weapon, wouldn't that have protected and saved several hundred thousand Palestinian men, women and children from slaughter?

If Palestinians were to detonate a small nuclear weapon in Jerusalem, where the Israeli government is based, it would cause devastating consequences for Palestine itself due to its close proximity. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Palestine could be completely free from nuclear exposure. In that case, my position is that they should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. I reason that they would most likely use such a weapon if they had one, which would trigger a global conflict, maybe even World War III. Anyone genuinely interested in peace, not just in the region but in the world, would probably share this view.

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
wrt Iran's nuclear device. This raises the general question of nuclear weapons as we have been informed about them over the past eight decades or so.

I have gradually - from observing the astonishing and continuing non-usage over my lifetime - reached broadly the same skeptical conclusion as is expressed here in a post by Vox Day reporting Pepe Escobar's statements:

I am very skeptical that nuclear weapons exist in the form we have been told that they do. Whether they don’t exist at all, which is what I think is the most probable state, or whether they simply aren’t stable to keep ready for more than a week or two, I don’t know. But I’m entirely confident that the whole concept of a “nuclear arsenal” that involves weapons being preserved in a metal shell and ready at the push of a button for decades is a fictional one.

So what Iran “possessing a nuclear weapon” actually signifies could mean that Iran is now willing to end the nuclear charade that ensured US military dominance for the last 70 years, and that it has the permission of China and Russia to do so.

Bruce, my thought about this right now is that it might not matter. If a country is believed to have operational nuclear weapons (e.g. North Korea), that alone seems to have been an effective deterrent for them (NK) ... and maybe for everyone else too.

Not mentioned in your post, but another aspect of this is that nuclear weaponry is a vintage, well-understood technology, now 80 years old. (And even more off-topic, I do believe these weapons are real and functional.) The engineers of half the world's nations could make a simple (but devastating) nuclear device, without the safeguards of well-policed international agreements.

The history of technological development tells us that (a) 'well-policed international agreements' usually fail sooner or later, and (b) just like the spread of microchips, jet engines, drones, rocketry and satellites, there'll come a time — whether in 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years from now — where every nation that has the engineers will also have nukes.

Then what?

Bill, I have taken the liberty of grabbing both your and Bruce's posts off the Israel vs Palestine/Lebanon/Iran/Yemen/Syria: a New Middle East War thread to answer the question you posed (Then what?).

I think this is a very valid concern and warrants some serious discussion. I am not sure how others feel and would like to hear what people have to say. We could very well be on the brink of the collapse of the nuclear proliferation agreement, and at the same time be in an unprecedented period of nuclear escalation.

My thoughts are: Assuming that every country that wanted a nuclear weapon had acquired one, the absolute outcome would likely be characterised by profound and catastrophic consequences. The world and individuals would likely be in a constant state of high anxiety. There would be almost a one hundred percent probability of nuclear conflict, accidents, or misuse. We would be in a perpetual state of preemptive or first strike risks. Small conflicts or misunderstandings would escalate almost immediately to a nuclear exchange. The chances of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of hardcore terrorists are almost certain.

If people actually believed that their life could end reasonably soon, their behaviors would run the gamut from chaos and despair to compassion to people seeking spiritual salvation or enlightenment. Society would break down, crime would be rampant, and survival would dominate our daily lives.

Nuclear responsibility depends on responsible actors, leaders and people who have a global culture of peace; in other words, nuclear war is inevitable under this scenario. There is not a senario that I can think of that does not threaten human civilation and the planet itself.

[BMJ]

A rule of thump that stayed sane countries from a nuclear exchange is the fact that nobody wins and everyone suffers both the victor and vanquished.

When it comes to terrorists states like North Korea & the Iranian regime and those they support there is no common sense and success is sought at potentially an cost, therefore they should be flat out denied access to any nuclear technology.