Accidental nuclear war

[Geronimo]

We've had a lot of talk in these forums about how nuclear proliferation isn't cause for grave concern because no leader in his right mind would ever escalate to a nuclear war and any leader not in his right mind who might would find himself promptly removed from power by high level government aparatiks when he seemed about to do so.

I wonder if the real danger of nuclear proliferation might be an accidental launch or a result of standing orders and miscommunication. For instance I've heard that in the cuban missle crisis the Soviet commander on the island, General Pliyev in charge of the missles in Cuba had standing orders to launch them if an invasion began which threatend the missles. In that case nuclear war would have begun without any real calculation to launch the missles by the top leadership on either side.

So does the risk of an accidental or otherwise unplanned nuclear war substantially increase as nuclear proliferation increases or has the uneventful history of decades of tens of thousands of deployed nuclear weapons shown that the addition of a few dozen or even hundreds of nuclear weapons would have little impact on the likelihood of nuclear launches? Is it appropriate to assume that the two cold war super powers kept much more reliable control of their arsenals than the new nuclear powers are likely to manage? Is the risk of unplanned nuclear war influenced more by the number of nuclear weapons or more by the number of independant organizations in control of such weapons?

I think the answers to these questions is critical to determining if nuclear proliferation is really a threat to world peace.

[Az]

worst time to open a thread ever.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Az
worst time to open a thread ever.

oops I apologize for the inconvenient timing! ermm why this a particularly inconsiderate time to post a thread?

[Az]

oops I apologize for the inconvenient timing! ermm why this a particularly inconsiderate time to post a thread?

See post above me.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by BrianBlessed?!?
Brian Blessed??!?!?!??!

Sorry, wrong thread.

oh I see. like the mohammed cartoons the real crime in this case is that it's insufficiently funny

[Az]

oh I see. like the mohammed cartoons the real crime in this case is that it's insufficiently funny

[Agathon]

It goes like this (from best scenario to worst).

1. Nobody has them and we are safe.

2. We and our opponents have them (the MAD scenario).

3. Only one country has them (no deterrence from using them).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon
It goes like this (from best scenario to worst).

1. Nobody has them and we are safe.

2. We and our opponents have them (the MAD scenario).

3. Only one country has them (no deterrence from using them).

for number 2 do you require that both countries in every pair of countries hostile to each other in the entire world possess nuclear arms for it to not qualify as scenario 3? The idea of every country in the world that has unfriendly relations with another country possessing nukes seems a hell of lot more dangerous than a world in which say only 5 countries have nukes even if some of those 5 countries had enemies that lacked nukes.

[joncha]

Apparently the answer is Matthew Broderick.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by BrianBlessed?!?
I am more worried about teh accidental Brianification

That stems mostly from the fact that while unplanned nuclear war remains a hypothetical danger, accidental Brianification has already been seen to occur in some threads. However, this ignores the disparity in the relevance of the consequences of the two dangers. To clarify, are you saying that you find the risk of unplanned warfare to be practially zero, the consquences of unplanned nuclear warfare to be bearable or do you find the consequences of accidental Brianification to be particular onerous in some way? AFAIK the consequences of accidental Brianification are breif and relatively innocuous.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo


for number 2 do you require that both countries in every pair of countries hostile to each other in the entire world possess nuclear arms for it to not qualify as scenario 3? The idea of every country in the world that has unfriendly relations with another country possessing nukes seems a hell of lot more dangerous than a world in which say only 5 countries have nukes even if some of those 5 countries had enemies that lacked nukes.

It doesn't matter as long as two countries have them and the others can pick and choose which side to support.

It would be hard for any country to use intercontinental nuclear weapons against any other party if there were another nuclear armed state that would be likely to see any launch as potentially threatening itself.

My own view is #1. That's New Zealand's view on the whole: nuclear weapons are insane and make no one safer, so we declined to be "protected" by them.

[Agathon]

joncha

Really wanted to do Ally Sheedy after seeing that movie.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


It doesn't matter as long as two countries have them and the others can pick and choose which side to support.

It would be hard for any country to use intercontinental nuclear weapons against any other party if there were another nuclear armed state that would be likely to see any launch as potentially threatening itself.

My own view is #1. That's New Zealand's view on the whole: nuclear weapons are insane and make no one safer, so we declined to be "protected" by them.

Probably in some sense everybody would agree that the world would be safer without nukes but that doesn't translate into any obvious useful policy that a single state could pursue to accomplish the goal. If both Russia and the US for instance totally eliminated their nukes that would in no way make it more tempting for the remaining nuclear powers to eliminate their own.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Agathon
It goes like this (from best scenario to worst).

1. Nobody has them and we are safe.

I don't think that this is completely true. The disappearance of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between powers feasible again.

Would the Soviets have abstained from invading Western Europe if NATO wasn't armed with nukes? What would stop China from invading Taiwan if there were no nukes? What would stop it from invading Japan or Siberia if tensions really started to flare up? Without nuclear weapons, conventional warfare as a political tool once again becomes a viable alternative for world powers / aspiring world powers. The threat of quick and utter destruction is a powerful disincentive to agression. In a strange way, the nuclear weapon has done more to create peace than just about anything.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't think that this is completely true. The disappearance of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between powers feasible again.

Would the Soviets have abstained from invading Western Europe if NATO wasn't armed with nukes? What would stop China from invading Taiwan if there were no nukes? What would stop it from invading Japan or Siberia if tensions really started to flare up? Without nuclear weapons, conventional warfare as a political tool once again becomes a viable alternative for world powers / aspiring world powers. The threat of quick and utter destruction is a powerful disincentive to agression. In a strange way, the nuclear weapon has done more to create peace than just about anything.

I really doubt china is held back in any way from an invasion of taiwan or japan by nukes given they had the balls to intervene in the korean war at a time they had no nukes and one of the combatant nations they would be fighting had a huge nuclear arsenal. Furthermore it's quite absurd to suppose that a chinese invasion of either japan or taiwan would by itself lead a nuclear attack on China. Neither of those places has nukes and it's very doubtful any country allied with them would be willing to open the nuclear can of worms for the sake of retribution on behalf of their ally. More likely China is constrained from doing these things by the weakness of it's navy.

I agree that nuclear weapons have made the world more peaceful than the world would be in which such weapons were not possible to create so far but I have yet to see a good argument that would explain how nuclear weapons could not end up being used through accidents or unrecognized oversights in nuclear use policies.