Nuclear disarmament

[diy_fun_uk]

Due to recent events, the debate around nuclear weapons has once again come to the fore. Within the EU/UK family, only ourselves and France have a declared nuclear capability.

On this weeks 'Debate Night' (think of it as a Scottish Question Time) the question of nuclear came up. There was the usual mix of pro/anti stances. What interested me was one of the panelists saying we need to work towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale. The end result obviously being no country would need to worry about being targeted with a nuclear warhead as no country would have them.

I'm sorry to be a pessimist, but surely this is cloud cuckoo land, no? Can anyone here hand on heart say they can ever envisage all nuclear countries sitting around the proverbial table and agreeing to decommission their nuclear warheads? More importantly, even if 100% of nations signed up to such as agreement, does anyone honestly think 100% would adhere to said agreement?

It's fantasy land surely? The nuclear capability cat is out the bag and, globally, it won't be going back in.

My rationale is, given we already have nuclear capability, better to hold on to it. However I appreciate views are split. Some assert the UK would actually be safer on the global stage if we didn't possess them as we wouldn't be seen as a threat. I'm happy to be convinced on that, however I think we'd be leaving ourselves unnecessarily exposed.

What are your views on the likelihood of global nuclear disarmament ever (genuinely) happening? And if like me you think 'nae chance' do you agree/disagree that the UK should maintain its nuclear capability?

 

[Justin Passing]

I would expect the US Russia and China to keep, have and develop everything, whatever they said.

From what I've seen, nobody is saying they can shoot all the nuclear missiles down yet, but it'll come soon. That'll change the picture.
Missiles at mach 27 I think it was.


To get an idea how fast that is, look at the ISS Live feed camera. The app works better than the website for me. It's just going over Australia at 27000 km/hr. Doesn't give you long to get under the stairs if the nukes go that fast.

As it happens, pic of north end of Spencer gulf near Adelaide.
It comes up th e Bristol channel at 4 or so this morning.

 

[motorbiking]

They won't be going that fast when they re-enter the atmosphere. Still mach3 though. A CIWS could be helpful at stopping the nuke going off.

 

[conny]

No chance of disarmament by anyone. That would be like asking the cowboys in Westerns to give up their rifles because the Indians had managed to get their hands on some.
They are here to stay even if all countries said they had disarmed.

 

[IT Minion]

They won't be going that fast when they re-enter the atmosphere. Still mach3 though. A CIWS could be helpful at stopping the nuke going off.

Ballistic missiles re-enter at 6km/s and airburst hundreds of meters up. CIWS would only have a chance if the RV was heading straight for it. And only for a fraction of a second between it entering its effective range and reaching its target height. None at all if it were trying to hit a crossing trajectory.

 

[JohnD]

No chance of disarmament by anyone. That would be like asking the cowboys in Westerns to give up their rifles because the Indians had managed to get their hands on some.
They are here to stay even if all countries said they had disarmed.

Sadly, Ukraine, which used to be a nuclear power, made a mistake.

It gave away its arms to Russia, in exchange for guarantees of security and maintaining its borders.

Nobody will make that mistake again.

 

[transam]

This Ukraine caper will result in further countries seeking to acquire nukes

 

[Nozzle]

Which state (or state actor) is the most dangerous - the one with an arsenal of nukes, or the one with just a single device?

I'd suggest the latter, as there is greater intent to obtain it to use it, rather than obtain it for MAD-defence.

Nozzle

 

[ellal]

Which state (or state actor) is the most dangerous - the one with an arsenal of nukes, or the one with just a single device?

Or a state with a large stockpile of nuclear weapons run by an out of control psychopath deciding to use a single device as part of a 'false flag' operation?

 

[Nozzle]

Or a state with a large stockpile of nuclear weapons run by an out of control psychopath deciding to use a single device as part of a 'false flag' operation?

Whos flag would be 'attached' to the device - Iran, North Korea? Certainly not Ukraine

Nozzle

 

[empip]

A graphic produced by NATO comparing nuke arsenals :-
https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/972413/NATO_graphic.png

We have one Trident sub on patrol at any given time, 8 missiles 5 warheads each (capable of carrying more missiles if we could afford them).

Apparently we have around 200 nukes - warheads I guess. Delivery systems apart from Trident ? Not much, if at all.

-0-

 

[Deleted member 18243]

What interested me was one of the panelists saying we need to work towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale. The end result obviously being no country would need to worry about being targeted with a nuclear warhead as no country would have them.
It's fantasy land surely?

Blimey, it's like going back 60 years in time. Are the Beatles still at No. 1? Will there be a revival of CND, folk singers and duffle coats?

In the early part of my life the world was in fear of Russia, and now in the later part the world is again in fear of Russia. The bit in between was nice though.

I would expect the US Russia and China to keep, have and develop everything, whatever they said.

Exactly! Those are evil empires. After WW2 they never ceased to expand their arms building, at the expense of their civilian populations whom they kept at peasant level. Whereas our governments did the opposite, made all us peasants super-rich at the expense of defense.

 

[StephenStephen]

There are relevant examples of how this kind of move has happened - for example; fairly (though not completely) successful global agreements on biological and chemical warfare, the global co-operative action on the ozone layer was impressively successful.

The other aspect at play is the advantage, primarily financial, that countries have by not having nuclear weapons - Japan comes to mind.

It's a classic example of prisoners' dilemma - I've lost track of what game theory tells us about successful strategies viv-a-vis nuclear weapons...

...and it's certainly cloud cuckoo land thinking to believe that systems which can only be used to destroy much if not all of life on earth create stability and security - I've lost track of the research on that, but my understanding is it really is idealistic nonsense to believe that nuclear weapons keep people safe.

 

[Justin Passing]

Upcoming nukes aren't ballistic - changes the game somewhat.


The nukes Ukraine had, I read were ex soviet stuff which they could only maybe possibly have used if they dismantled it and rebuilt something, because they didn't have the "launch codes" or whatever security was applied to them.

If Ukraine still had nukes, either Pootn wouldn't have invaded, or there would have been a much bigger mess. Who knows...

I've lost track of the research on that, but my understanding is it really is idealistic nonsense to believe that nuclear weapons keep people safe.

Research is based on evidence. What evidence? Threat of MAD appeared to have an effect during the cold war and up to now, wouldn't you say?

 

[ajohn]

I don't think there is any chance of them being dropped. One of Russia's requests rather than demands seems to relate to number of warhead controls and where these war heads are etc. Talks in other words. There has been on ICBM's but along comes multi warhead designs. Cruise missile can carry them too - more of a threat to Europe as far as Russia is concerned. People who watched abandoned engineering would know that there are abandoned missile silos around. Perhaps they concentrate on mobile and subs now.

The big problem with them is that many countries want them. Eg India and Pakistan have them. The little man in N Korea who thinks he will have his spy satellite shortly.

It seems that countries can't rely on what direction they come from any more and the general idea is to get them where they are going as quickly as possible.

As yield varies the only thing that stops them from being used tactically is getting loads back.

Talk about alert levels is probably bull stuff. They need to go rapidly to achieve their goals.

The early UK control system seemed to relate to BT towers. Swiss - all have proper nuclear bunkers.

The regulations of the Swiss militia system stipulate that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[6]), or in an armoury. Compulsory military service applies to all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.[7] Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for 18 weeks (23 weeks for special forces).
The reform "Army XXI" replaced the previous model "Army 95" and was adopted by popular vote in 2003, reducing manpower from 400,000 to about 200,000 personnel, with 120,000 receiving periodic military training and 80,000 reservists who have completed their total military training requirements.[8] A further reform effective in 2018 heralded the reduction of forces to 100,000 members.