I just posted a fairly long comment to John Scalzi’s thread on Iranian war drums. Since it’s been a while since I bloviated here on security issues, and since there’s no way to link directly to my comment, I’ll repost it here. See that thread for the messages I’m replying to.
Kevin Q: your assertion that a nuclear weapon-free world can’t happen anytime soon is incorrect. There are a number of plans on the table for taking pragmatic steps that ensure mutual security between here and there. I recommend checking the Pugwash.org archives for details on this. While nonproliferation is an important intermediary step, getting to zero is the only number that will ensure the prevention of nuclear holocaust.
Jim Millen: using nuclear weapons “only twice” in anger is misleading. The Fat Boy and Little Man weapons we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so small compared to modern weapons that they are quite literally the triggers for modern bombs. It’s the equivalent of saying that anyone who can be trusted with a BB gun can be trusted with a howitzer.
That being said, the reason why the US “gets to have” nukes is because, as Tim said, we invented them first (with British assistance), and because our possession was subsequently codified in international law. The quid pro quo of the NPT is that other nations don’t get them, but the nuclear states are required to get rid of theirs. You can see why many people feel that the nuclear states aren’t living up to their end of the bargain.
Finally, in case any Freepers are here, it is US law that we respect the agreements of any treaties we sign.
Dean: your assessment of the “cleanliness” of tactical nuclear weapons is incorrect. There are many studies that show that a tactical nuke would, in your words, “only move the dirt around”. Of course, it would also turn it into highly radioactive and lethal dirt and propel thousands of tons of it into the atmosphere. It’s by no means assured that satellite positioning would be able to ensure the destruction of a bunker, and the surface-level effects of any such attack would be drastic.
I suspect that anyone who says that “country X wants us to bomb them” has a very weak understanding of how much damage our bombs can do, even conventional.
Tim: see above regarding the cleanliness of “tactical” and “bunker buster” bombs. There is a great deal of research that indicates that a) they would work only if they unleashed the “normal” devastation of a regular nuclear attack on the surface, and if we were certain of their underground location (a tough requirement), and b) the use of the word “tactical” was purely a political ploy to gain public and Congressional support of the funding of baby nukes after the end of the Cold War.
My thinking is that the use of any nuke would let the genie out of the bottle. America did get a pass for its use during WWII, by and large, but were we to use them again, suddenly any nation who has them or wants them would find far less political resistance to their actual use. That particular path is likely to end in the extermination of mankind. I have trouble believing there is any tactical advantage to be had that outweighs that possibility.
Bill Marcy: yes, it’s safest if your tribe can kill all of the other tribes. Until all of the other tribes realize they can band together and beat you. The process by which tribes make agreements and agree not to kill each other, for the common good of all, is called “civilization”. It’s an interesting idea. You could look it up.
Brian Greenberg: drop me a line sometime and let me know which anti-war groups have that kind of power and influence. I’d like to join them, instead of the ineffectual ones I’m a member of now. But I’ll note that if you believe that no government will ever use nukes, I can see why you think that we anti-nuclear activists are crazy. Our point of view is that the death of a few hundred million people might actually be of concern, rather than presuming in the continued sanity of everyone with a football.
Tim: We might have 33% of global GDP, but we’re currently at 50% of the world’s military spending. Put another way, we spend as much as the rest of the world combined, allies and enemies alike.
Numbers like that might lead one to wonder, if one were cynical, if our spending is truly attuned to threat levels, and instead is attuned to the billions of dollars that people make by being military suppliers.
But you make my argument for me. Your model is that America spends so much money on the military because we can afford it. But what happens when we can’t anymore? Ask Brian Greenberg, he’s a Wharton grad, and he can tell you that depressions are cyclical. One might also note that there’s some interesting research that shows that the Chinese and Indian economies might rival our own within this century. So is a rational plan of defense to say, “We’re going to outspend everyone, forever”? Or is a rational plan of defense to say that we will work towards collective security measures and put an end to our zero-sum thinking?
I’ll get back to my earlier comments here and elsewhere: America has the strongest conventional military in the world. Nuclear weapons balance the playing field for the other side. It’s absolutely insane for any America Firster to support nukes, since we’d be an even bigger dog if nobody had them.
Brian Greenberg, again: We routinely deny other countries’ right to exist. Use Taiwan as an example of a country that does exist, and Kurdistan and Chechnya as countries that would like to.
You’re right that we don’t have a military goal of committing genocide. That being said, some of the plans I’m seeing here to use tactical nukes in Iran would probably wipe out around 20% of the population, even if done “right”.
Tim, again: your supposition is that it’s okay for the debt to grow during war. But we’re in a war with no defined end (that is, the “war” on terrorism) and which we are told to expect will last decades. Do you care to reconsider your statement?
You also point out that we started WWII with an effective debt of zero. We started this war fairly far in the hole. Since you assign our wealth as being a key factor of our defense, one might expect these figures to make you nervous.
Via 