open Democracy News Analysis - The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence, - Comments

Richard Lawson on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Richard Lawson — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:01:36 +0100

Iron Mike, we are on the same side here!! I am making the same point: classical deterrence - based on the "rational" assessment that nobody in the system wants to commit suicie - is dead, because of exactly those irrational factors that you point out. I am not advocating nuclear deterrence, I want to see buried. Capisc'?

Richard Lawson on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Richard Lawson — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:49:15 +0100

Dear Englishman, there are more than 190 states in the UN. Only 8 or 9 are Nuclear Weapons States (NWS). There is a great desire on the part of the non nuclear weapon states (NNWS) for the NWS actually to do what they have agreed to do in the NNPT - take serious steps to disarm. Only a couple of regimes are currently seeking to join the nuclear club. Each is spurred on by perceived nuclear threats against their national security by unfriendly (to their perceptions) NWS. The name of the game is Escalation through Mutual Paranoia . The longer NWS continue to cling to their nuclear addiction, the more NNWS will want to join the nuclear club, and the greater the probability of your "nuclear incident" (which, remember, may or may not grow into a global nuclear meltdown) actually taking place. The fact is that the vast majority of states want to see the end of NWs, but this development is held back by another unwelcome fact, that the UNSC permanent members are all NWS. This is a depressing and discouraging fact, but we should not allow it to make us feel depressed and discouraged, and therefore unable to act. We can still think rationally, which is a valuable if much underused property of the human brain. I recommend a visit to http://www.danplesch.net/ and a perusal of the Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace. There you will find a road map out of this NW quagmire in which we find ourselves. Dan Plesch is fond of quoting one Henry Kissinger, who you may remember from the 70s, who is now saying, to anyone that will listen, that we have got to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the planet. What the politicians are waiting for is the political will to be made to move in the direction of general disarmament. Political will, remember, comes from the people. All it takes is for a certain threshold proportion of democratic citizens who are currently saying "I would like the world to change, but I as an individual can do nothing" to change their script to "I would like the world to change, and I am going to go and join up with those other people who want the same thing." and we can provide the political motivation. Success is not guaranteed. We may of course fail. What is guaranteed is that if we do nothing about the NNPT, politicians will also do nothing about the NNPT. IMHO. Richard

englishman on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

englishman — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:48:25 +0100

Eric, at the present time the NNPT has certainly not got the slightest chance of achieving its aim. That does not mean its goal is wrong but merely that it simply will not be achieved any time soon. It is a playing out on a large scale of a complicated version of the prisoner's dilemma. You can point all you like to the hazards of maintaining nuclear arms but I do not sense that many governments are going to listen. Keep shouting though. As I said, I am just trying to state the situation as I see it and not how I would like to see it. I do not see it likely that there will be a nuclear armageddon. A nuclear exchange somewhere in the world? Possibly, but not inevitably. In politics the shortest distance between two points is rarely a straight line. The way for a grand nuclear disarmament does not seem apparent to me at the moment.

eric_5 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

eric_5 — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:21:00 +0100

Englishman, The argument against the NNPT is that it has not the slightest possibility of achieving its aim. This demonstrates that we (human beings) are not committed to survival. Therefore, a nuclear incident is quite likely. Whether this leads to an acceleration of the arms race or a pause for prudent thought or, indeed, to still greater immediate destruction is what we shall see.

englishman on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

englishman — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:53:50 +0100

Eric, my analysis was one of "where we are" rather than "where we may wish to be". I do not think that the chance of destruction of the human race is a likely outcome because we have developed systems, machine and human, that mean that such an event, at once a possibility, is now very unlikely. I at no time said that "a nuclear incident" was not a potential outcome. The development of nuclear devices without such control systems or the political desire to restrain their use does lead to the possibility of a "nuclear event" although I would contend that this would not lead to the MAD scenario which was part of the original postulate. Of course there is a time element so the longer we have political instability and development of nuclear weapons without any moral restraint to use them, the likleyhood of their use at some time will be higher. I do not think it anything like a certainty though and I would be wary of suggesting such an exaggerated stance if you are trying to convince people of this, as it simply weakens the good arguments for NNPT.

eric_5 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

eric_5 — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:29:35 +0100

englishman, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the intended instrument for managing the situation. It requires non-nuclear states not to acquire nuclear weapons and nuclear states to disarm. You assume, despite the entire history of mankind, that we are rational in avoiding destruction. If this were so, we would implement the NNPT. That there is no likelihood of it being implemented makes our irrationality clear. Therefore, continuing proliferation, continuing upgrading of nuclear weapons, and related systems , make a nuclear incident highly probable.

englishman on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

englishman — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:47:49 +0100

Richard, your argument is not new and we had a much more dangerous situation in the 60s when there was the megatonnage and delivery capability but without the same degree of capability in communication we have today. The standoff between the USA and the USSR was certainly a very dangerous state with plenty of hawks on both sides who may not be totally under executive control. A MAD scenario is much less likely today because control and communication is immensely better and the countries with such a capability would not react in an uncontrolled way. The proliferation of nuclear weapons does, of course, increase the risk of a nuclear exchange but not, at least so far, on a scale that would destroy the world. It may not be difficult for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon but it will be a long time before they are able to develop many. Given this I would hold that your thesis is not based on a correct premise in that I do not think that a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario is a likely outcome, so the consequences of failure would not result in the end of mankind. It is even (in a strict sense) not certain that this was ever the case, but we can all agree that such a scenario is best avoided. Everyone would agree, I think, that the world would be a safer place if countries were not armed to the teeth with weapons of such a destructive capability. But as has been said, this particular genie is out and we have to do our best to manage the situation. The chance of a "system failure", whereby there is a massive nuclear exchange, may be finite but it is very, very small now. Probably much smaller than the chance of a meteorite strike or other natural disaster over which we have no control. So your statistics, for those mathematically inclined, of small number (finite chance of system failure) multiplied by infinity (certainty of MAD) equals infinity (we are all going to die) is rather exaggerated. The finite chance of system failure leading to a MAD scenario is really very small and hopefully will not last forever. It is that we should not be vigilant in keeping it so, but just that there are many other issues in the world to worry about and in this particular case it is probable that the shortest direction to solving this problem is anything but a straight line.

eric_5 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

eric_5 — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:03:04 +0100

It's entirely possible that there will be a nuclear incident resulting in the deaths of a few million people. If this concentrates minds, we will have the motivation that led to the creation of the United Nations, following the horrors of WW2. A New United Nations could lead to a more peaceful world.

Ron Allen on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Ron Allen — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:54:53 +0100

Debating this topic is more than worthwhile and I am grateful you brought it up. The disconnect for me is the use of CBT. I am a child of more therapy models than you can shake a stick at. With that said, I attempt to keep my thinking simple and as such, black and white as possible, with a touch of gray. The genie is out of the bottle when we talk Atomic. I believe that it is irrational to have a weapon that will destory life as we know it. How does one put the genie back in the bottle? How would you limit countries from investing in the research, testing and deployment of atomic weapons? It is more than irrational to say we should just throw them away. Since you have opened such a powerful debate, please do not act out by stating you will stop playing if you don't get your way. "If there is no point in trying to think in a logical way about nuclear weapons, then there is no point in our discussing it." I am not picking at you, but it appears that your "therapy model" gets in the way. You have mentioned that you will not debate if Chris and I do not follow your logic. If that is the case then I will end my portion of this affair. If you are willing to look at prevention of new and destruction of old weaponry, I am all for it. Pie in the sky thinking will not resolve this dilemma. Logic is fine, though I believe in facts and common sense. I look forward to hearing more from Chris and you in the days ahead.

Richard Lawson on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Richard Lawson — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:17:23 +0100

Chris9234, I was responding to this: "Ron is being more than reasonable in questioning mankind's ability to overcome his irrationality". My thesis is that it is irrational to employ a system is almost certain to destroy our civilisation. Therefore, we should stop using that system. What Ron , with your backing, seems to be saying is that we are intrinsically irrational beings, so there is no point in trying to think in a logical way about nuclear weapons. If there is no point in trying to think in a logical way about nuclear weapons, then there is no point in our discussing it. On the other hand, I do accept that much of human motivation is irrational, the global arms trade and nuclear weaponry being a case in point, but that even so, it is worth while thinking about these things logically and rationally. This is what Conginitive Behavioral Therapy is bringing, with notable success, to the treatment of psychiatric disorder of individuals.

chris9234 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

chris9234 — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:13:37 +0100

erased. Could this forum be any buggier?

chris9234 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

chris9234 — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:11:35 +0100

erased

chris9234 on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

chris9234 — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:54:08 +0100

Of course we have the ability to overcome certain irrational thoughts and impulses; I personally do it all the time, though I'd be lying if I said I did it all the time. But no, I don't believe we can overcome our irrationality in the sense that it can be removed from being a part of the human condition. Why, or how, does my holding this belief render a conversation on nuclear disarmament pointless?

Iron Mike on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Iron Mike — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:23:04 +0100

Dr. Lawson, They also form a system in the sense of classical Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrence, whereby opposed states are restrained from using their weapons in warfare because of the threat of retaliation by its opponent. The problem is your assessment is backward-looking rather than forward-looking to an era of rogue nations and non-state actors triggering a nuclear armageddon. MAD requires a sense of self-preservation. How do you reconcile that with nations such as Iran, whose leadership welcomes armageddon and indeed, seeks an opportunity to hasten its arrival as a means of achieving their warped religious ideology? It is not we who cannot overcome our irrationality, but the irrationality of Islamic fascisim which cannot be overcome. This might make the debate moot, but not the threat.

Richard Lawson on "The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence"

Richard Lawson — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:46:09 +0100

If you believe we cannot overcome our irrationality, then there is little point in our debating, is there?

The (Il)logic of Nuclear deterrence,

Richard Lawson — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:55:57 +0100

Nuclear Deterrence and Logic In principle, if the consequences of the failure of a system would be infinitely destructive to a civilisation, it is reasonable for that civilisation to use that system if and only if the probability of its failure are zero. Does the possession of nuclear weapons by a number of states in the international community constitute a system, that is, a group of interrelated parts forming a whole? It is certain that they are interrelated; the possession of these weapons by one state is indeed the driver for a second state to obtain its own weapons, forming a chain reaction of nuclear weapons proliferation which the NPT seeks, with surprising success, to restrain. They also form a system in the sense of classical Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrence, whereby opposed states are restrained from using their weapons in warfare because of the threat of retaliation by its opponent. Read the rest of this post...