Nuclear disarmament Watch

Poll: What should be done
Complete disarmament (14)
35.9%
Status quo (24)
61.54%
All nations should be allowed nukes (1)
2.56%
Other (0)
0%
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Pressure? Sure. 'Great' pressure? No, not at all. From a game theory point of view the importance of nuclear weapons to these countries far outweighs the minor punitive financial cost of sanctions or withheld aid from the West, and as Iran and North Korea have shown there's ultimately very little we can do diplomatically to stop a determined state getting nuclear weapons, short of regime change or warfare, two methods which are apparently not in fashion anymore with the public.
North Korea is a particularly extreme and very different example - they are utterly shut off as a country, they have long been protected by China and they are still in a limbo state of semi-war.

Pakistan, India and Israel are all locked into the global system (with variations) and have been client states of great powers. They have had much less real independence than one might assume.

In the case of Israel, it's understandable that the US would tolerate their development and deployment of nuclear weapons, as it fits with the key US policy goal of defending Israel - it's much less so obvious why that is the case with Pakistan and India, which they could have stopped through a combination of deep sanctions and aggressive intelligence operations. The logical inference must be that it suited western interests of various kinds to have the sub-continent nuclearised.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
North Korea is a particularly extreme and very different example - they are utterly shut off as a country, they have long been protected by China and they are still in a limbo state of semi-war.

Pakistan, India and Israel are all locked into the global system (with variations) and have been client states of great powers. They have had much less real independence than one might assume.

In the case of Israel, it's understandable that the US would tolerate their development and deployment of nuclear weapons, as it fits with the key US policy goal of defending Israel - it's much less so obvious why that is the case with Pakistan and India, which they could have stopped through a combination of deep sanctions and aggressive intelligence operations. The logical inference must be that it suited western interests of various kinds to have the sub-continent nuclearised.
The CIA has a reputation of being utterly terrible at predicting nuclear proliferation. It's hardly an easy thing to do either, infiltrating a countries nuclear program. Especially in Patriotic/Nationalistic nations like Pakistan and India where nationals are unlikely to want to betray their country so human intelligence is not an option and without that good luck getting any sort of interference or information gathering op off the ground.

I really don't think that the US or the West wants to see the sub continent nuclearized. Especially Pakistan which is often pointed at as a potential source for an al Qaeda nuke. The US has also spent a lot of money trying to secure Pakistani nukes, hardly the actions of a government that wants them there.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by Aj12)
The CIA has a reputation of being utterly terrible at predicting nuclear proliferation. It's hardly an easy thing to do either, infiltrating a countries nuclear program. Especially in Patriotic/Nationalistic nations like Pakistan and India where nationals are unlikely to want to betray their country so human intelligence is not an option and without that good luck getting any sort of interference or information gathering op off the ground.

I really don't think that the US or the West wants to see the sub continent nuclearized. Especially Pakistan which is often pointed at as a potential source for an al Qaeda nuke. The US has also spent a lot of money trying to secure Pakistani nukes, hardly the actions of a government that wants them there.
I'm not saying that the US and the west generally are completely efficient all of the time - and I agree that the CIA (at least we are led to believe) have a terrible record of tracking and preventing, in particular, the determined efforts of Pakistani and North Korean nuclear proliferation. I think the point we disagree on is that I argue they could have done a lot more, had they really, really wanted to. I suspect there are forces in the west (and the former Soviet Union and possibly also China) that support the maintenance and intensification of 'zones of conflict', as these are ideal territories into which to sell the products of the massive global arms industry, which remains a bedrock industry of many advanced countries and was previously even more so.

I know I don't have really strong evidence to support this, other than the massive programmes of arms sales by the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and other countries into the sub-continent over the last 50 years.

What better to stoke the necessary levels of anxiety, fear and government paranoia than both sides having a few nukes? The Pakistani Bomb has been an absolute gift to the governmental system in India in particular (and the other way around) - now, every time the protests against corruption and the horribly exploitative Indian economic system rear up, the government can fly the flag of the Pakistani Threat.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I'm not saying that the US and the west generally are completely efficient all of the time - and I agree that the CIA (at least we are led to believe) have a terrible record of tracking and preventing, in particular, the determined efforts of Pakistani and North Korean nuclear proliferation. I think the point we disagree on is that I argue they could have done a lot more, had they really, really wanted to. I suspect there are forces in the west (and the former Soviet Union and possibly also China) that support the maintenance and intensification of 'zones of conflict', as these are ideal territories into which to sell the products of the massive global arms industry, which remains a bedrock industry of many advanced countries and was previously even more so.

I know I don't have really strong evidence to support this, other than the massive programmes of arms sales by the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and other countries into the sub-continent over the last 50 years.

What better to stoke the necessary levels of anxiety, fear and government paranoia than both sides having a few nukes? The Pakistani Bomb has been an absolute gift to the governmental system in India in particular (and the other way around) - now, every time the protests against corruption and the horribly exploitative Indian economic system rear up, the government can fly the flag of the Pakistani Threat.
So just to recap. You blame the intelligence services for not doing their job in the last few years, and then you criticise them for doing their job in the present.


You also seem to forget that India and Pakistan weren't signatories to teh Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. So it's a bit difficult to push for Sanctions on a country that hasn't signed up to those rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
Here's a flow-chart:

Q1: Should the free world keep nuclear weapons?
A1a: the free world does not exist.
-> Please go and live in North Korea, then come back and try again.
A1b: No.
-> Q2: Do you think the non-free world being the sole possessors of these weapons would be a better situation than what we've got, or worse?
-> A2a: Better.
--> You are insane.
-> A2b: Worse.
--> You are even more insane.
-> A2c: Hey, if the free world does it then everyone else will too!
--> See a doctor, now.
A1c: Yes.
-> That's better.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (201)
22.09%
The paper was reasonable (388)
42.64%
Not feeling great about that exam... (174)
19.12%
It was TERRIBLE (147)
16.15%

Watched Threads

View All