Nuclear Weapons - moral imperative?

[Indus Pakistan]

I was watching a old BBC documentary Project 706 from 1980 about the Pakistan Nuclear Project and at 7:10 Qaddafi is quoted as saying "time will come when people will say this country has this many nukes". The question I want members to think about is do all countries in particular 'unprotected'* and in areas of geostrategic stress have moral imperative to develop nuclear deterance?

*Those not enjoying nuclear protection from another nuclear state. For example although Norway does not have nukes but US nuclear deterant provides Norway a nuclear shield therefore it is protected. Jordan, Algeria or Marocco are not as examples.


I certainly think that. I think it smacks of arrogance for countries with nukes to lecture others. There is something in this that reminds me of the colonial age where some countries decided the fate of the world and even made conclusions like 'natives are not fit to rule themselves'.

The nuclear monopoly is the continuation of that and we need democratize the 'absolute ability to kill' (aak). Those who have had this in history have more often then not used it to subjugate those who did not have it. If the Native Americans had the 'aak' I doubt they would have been wiped from their lands and qurantined into reservations. If Black Africa had sliver of 'aak' millions would not have been enslaved.

In more recent times if Iraq or Syria or Libyia had 'aak' we would not have seen those countries destroyed. In a sense having 'aak' would enforce international stability and good behaviour. We would not see some countries holding 'aak' going around wrecking others.

No one group or a country has the 'holier than thou right' to adjudge who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. Who has right or is who does not depends on the observor's subjective outlook.

So do weak countries have a moral duty to their citizens to develop nuclear weapons?

@Joe Shearer @Vergennes @vostok @Khafee @Desertfalcon @Desert Fox @Sinopakfriend @Chinese-Dragon @AUSTERLITZ @Penguin @Serpentine @Daneshmand @EgyptianAmerican @Technogaianist @Louiq XIV @EyelessInGaza

All other military professionals or those who can contribute to take this discussion forward are invited to join in. I would prefer if people primarly focusd on the moral imperative of a state to go nuclear rather than turning a particular country and slogging it out. It is the principle (moral imperative to have nuclear wapons) I want to look at rather than a circumstance although of course examples are going to be mentioned. Is it amoral for governments to not have nuclear weapons and therefore leaving their citizens exposed to be invaded, attacked or bombed by other powers on one pretext or other?

What really focussed my thinking was the victory by Trump in USA. I looked at America as a sort of anchor on the world order - with all it's flaw. However since his victory it occured to me that what if the extreme right gained traction and it spread to Europe. We have people here like @Markus who espouse views that were dismissed as on the fringe but increasingly there is a drift to the right. What if in worst case scenario the right gained ascendancy in Europe. What would happen. The West has the absolute ability to kill and it could go back to the colonial age - I mean not invade and take over but it could do what it wants without any accounting as happened before 1940s. Only absolute power to kill sobers another absolute power to kill.

In the animal kingdom bees, wasps, snakes have ability to bite back at us - which is why we give regard to them. Others we just dismissingly squash without even a thought.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nuclear weapons are the reason why we no longer have world wars between major powers.

Unfortunately this has not stopped war. It has just led to nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear powers instead, like the American invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya.

Yet in this past decade of constant American invasions, they never touched North Korea? The major reason seems to be the fact that NK was actually successful in developing low level nuclear weapons.

I guess they think it is "no fun" when the country they are invading has the ability to hit back.

Why did China develop nukes? Why did Pakistan develop nukes? Neither of us has actually used these weapons (only the USA has actually used them on civilian populations).

For countries like China and Pakistan, they are/were a defensive measure against foreign invasion. We have a duty to defend ourselves.

 

[war&peace]

It is the right and duty of each and every state to protect its citizen and sovereignty from aggression. If the country can achieve nuclear deterrence; well and good, if it cannot, it should try to enter into some sort of pact with a truthworthy nuclear power.
Pakistan (or China) should offer their nuclear umbrella to KSA and other middle eastern countries on the condition that if their existence is threatened, they will be defended against it and of course they can compensate their defenders in certain ways.

USA under NATO and other pacts has provided its nuclear umbrella to many countries.
The basic principle in this world is "survival for the fittest" the rest of crap for human right and bla bla bla is a piece of crap and the countries who buy that have either been destroyed already or will be taken down in future. Example Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Look at Iraq what US did to them , and they did not even have Nukes .. Imagine if some Rusty old 80's era SCUD missiles was found ? I doubt US will let this happen or Israel ( specifically in ME section ) and to be honest , we don't need Nuke to Destroy ourselves .. the Humanity is already on it way for it , cause the world Most Powerful leader believe that Global Warming is a Chinese Conspiracy .. RIP to the World

 

[marj666]

General Zia ul Haq answered "Freedom" that's why we are developing nukes, not to start an arms race . If someone to look at nuclear weapons as a mean of deterrence then I guess every country should have them but the world sees them as a taboo which only the few so called "responsible countries" can have . Nuclear weapon is nothing but a bad *** gun and it shouldn't be taken as a "death star" . Question shouldn't be can we have them??? but why someone else should dictate the terms of engagement

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a deep question that you have asked, @Kaptaan , and I would like to think about it, and see what others have to say, before responding.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Its absolutely true that nuclear weapons are the main reason we have world peace and the lack of major wars.The UN is a modestly effective body solely because of that,otherwise it would have suffered the fate of the League of Nations.Without nukes the Cold war would have turned hot in the 50s or 60s with millions of deaths.So nuclear weapons have actually had a sober effect on mankind,it has promoted globalism( co-operation became a necessity as conquest became unprofitable and untenable) and as a side note i believe also aided in women's self assertion in societies which are now heavily demilitarized and not supporting huge standing armies based on conscription.

The bad side is that once nuclear weapons reach powers which are unstable,or dictatorial regimes like North Korea its a very volatile and dangerous scenario.A regime like this if collapsing, might in desperation and out of spite trigger nuclear attacks causing unthinkable geopolitical effects and human misery.I'm not talking of pakistan,i understand pakistan's pathological need for security after 1971 against its bigger neighbour -similar to how Israel viewed nukes as a guarantee to its long term survival.

 

[Khafee]

This is a very sensitive topic. I can't open my mouth without getting into trouble, hence "no comment"

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

I was watching a old BBC documentary Project 706 from 1980 about the Pakistan Nuclear Project and at 7:10 Qaddafi is quoted as saying "time will come when people will say this country has this many nukes". The question I want members to think about is do all countries in particular 'unprotected'* and in areas of geostrategic stress have moral imperative to develop nuclear deterance?

*Those not enjoying nuclear protection from another nuclear state. For example although Norway does not have nukes but US nuclear deterant provides Norway a nuclear shield therefore it is protected. Jordan, Algeria or Marocco are not as examples.


I certainly think that. I think it smacks of arrogance for countries with nukes to lecture others. There is something in this that reminds me of the colonial age where some countries decided the fate of the world and even made conclusions like 'natives are not fit to rule themselves'.

The nuclear monopoly is the continuation of that and we need democratize the 'absolute ability to kill' (aak). Those who have had this in history have more often then not used it to subjugate those who did not have it. If the Native Americans had the 'aak' I doubt they would have been wiped from their lands and qurantined into reservations. If Black Africa had sliver of 'aak' millions would not have been enslaved.

In more recent times if Iraq or Syria or Libyia had 'aak' we would not have seen those countries destroyed. In a sense having 'aak' would enforce international stability and good behaviour. We would not see some countries holding 'aak' going around wrecking others.

No one group or a country has the 'holier than thou right' to adjudge who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. Who has right or is who does not depends on the observor's subjective outlook.

So do weak countries have a moral duty to their citizens to develop nuclear weapons?

@Joe Shearer @Vergennes @vostok @Khafee @Desertfalcon @Desert Fox @Sinopakfriend @Chinese-Dragon @AUSTERLITZ @Penguin @Serpentine @Daneshmand @EgyptianAmerican @Technogaianist @Louiq XIV @EyelessInGaza

All other military professionals or those who can contribute to take this discussion forward are invited to join in. I would prefer if people primarly focusd on the moral imperative of a state to go nuclear rather than turning a particular country and slogging it out. It is the principle (moral imperative to have nuclear wapons) I want to look at rather than a circumstance although of course examples are going to be mentioned. Is it amoral for governments to not have nuclear weapons and therefore leaving their citizens exposed to be invaded, attacked or bombed by other powers on one pretext or other?

What really focussed my thinking was the victory by Trump in USA. I looked at America as a sort of anchor on the world order - with all it's flaw. However since his victory it occured to me that what if the extreme right gained traction and it spread to Europe. We have people here like @Markus who espouse views that were dismissed as on the fringe but increasingly there is a drift to the right. What if in worst case scenario the right gained ascendancy in Europe. What would happen. The West has the absolute ability to kill and it could go back to the colonial age - I mean not invade and take over but it could do what it wants without any accounting as happened before 1940s. Only absolute power to kill sobers another absolute power to kill.

In the animal kingdom bees, wasps, snakes have ability to bite back at us - which is why we give regard to them. Others we just dismissingly squash without even a thought.

Is this even worth discussing? Of course it's a moral duty. So far nukes have stopped numerous wars.

We have seen what usefulness the threats of Nukes has been for Israel. How many wars have been stopped thanks to Pakistan having Nukes?

When was the time that America attacked a Nuclear country? When was the last time a country attacked America?

Nukes have shown to have the unique capability of making dimwits think with their brains and come to the negotiating table to talk it out.


So yes, every nation should have Nukes.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

A regime like this if collapsing,

I could argue a nuclear regime will not be allowed to collapse anymore than Greece was allowed to starve post economic collapse. I think this argument is posited by those who have a interest in stopping another country getting them.

This is a deep

You of course understand this is beyond a country or specfic scenario. I am looking at the whole morality of having nuclear weapons. The more I think about it nuckear weapons are great democratizers. They create equality in a unequal world. They, no doubt are pain in the proverbial for those who hold absolute power and want to throw that power around without facing any repercussion.

This thread came about as result of of reading a book by African American's on the the suffering they went through slave trade and the total and absolute destruction of the human soul that millions of when millions of African's were transported to the land of the Native American who were also going through slow motion holocaust.

He raises the valid point that those who called themselves civilized did the most uncivilized barbaric things you can imagine but then called their victims barbaric. What he says is it all boiled down to ability to cause destruction. The invaders had greater ability to cause death and destruction. That was it. That was the basis on which entire Western order was built.

That brings to the interesting analogy with gun control. The gun as we know is a device to kill. In USA the gun lobby support guns becayse they say it offers everybody protection. The fact that a gun in hands of a unstable person could cause harm is overlooked. What is stresed is that the gun is a great equalizer. Freedom comes from barrel of a gun.

That exact same argument could be made for the nuclear weapon. I am not saying every country should have them but I certainly think every region of the world should have some. It creates equality. It forces people to talk and negotiate or seek diplomatic methods of resolving issues rather than sending in armies.

The animal kingdom learnt this - the bee has the sting, the snake the poison, the scorpion the sting etc I think in the world value is placed on countries by the amount of damage they can do. Nuclear weapons take that to the to another level.

@Penguin @gambit @Technogaianist