Author Topic: Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation  (Read 3289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation
« on: August 25, 2007, 01:31:23 PM »
I think this guy has some good points; my comments are bolded throughout.

Quote from: Science
Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation

THE UNITED STATES IS CONSIDERING THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF
new nuclear weapon designs, the objective being to sustain the nation’s ultimate deterrent for
the foreseeable future.* These initiatives are presented as supporting the highest U.S. security
priorities, which include countering the threats of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear
weapons—priorities that are widely shared internationally.

Proponents argue that the United States discussing, let alone deploying, new weapon designs
has no significant impact on proliferation. Officials responsible for the U.S. nuclear weapons
enterprise have made this point by considering the impact on three groups internationally: existing
nuclear powers, rogue states, and terrorists. According to this characterization, rogue states and
terrorists pursue their own interests, disregarding international influence to the degree they can.
What exactly is a 'rogue state'?  He sort of defines it here, but how many other countries does a rogue state have to disagree with in order to be considered 'rogue'?  Is North Korea a rogue state because they want nuclear weapons and we say that they can't have them?  Are we a rogue state because we didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol and many other countries did?  Or are we okay with that, simply because our state is so powerfuk?
And the balance of power remains essentially unchanged among existing nuclear powers. As a
senior Chinese colleague put it, our nations remain effectively deterred whether or not
the United States introduces new weapons into its nuclear arsenal.

But the proponents’argument is flawed because it ignores the vast
majority of nations around the world: nonnuclear powers that do conform
to international norms. To the degree that it considers deploying new
weapons, many of these countries view the United States as remaining
aloof from its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
My rogue state argument.
Indeed, many of the acknowledged nuclear powers also express grave
concerns that the United States’statements and actions may erode the
nonproliferation regime by influencing the nonnuclear nations.
I think this is the most important statement he makes here, and I agree with it:  How can we as a nation expect other nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons (or, more realistically, not produce any net gain of nuclear weapons) if we keep stepping up our arsenal?  I've said this before, that I think we should be the leaders here--we were the first to attain the Bomb, and we should be the first to decide that it's unneccesary.

Of course, we cannot be certain how deploying new warhead types will
affect the nonproliferation regime; after all, science provides only part of the
expertise required to inform policy, so this issue has to be approached with humility
and care.
You would think that someone have studied this, at least looked back in history at the rates of nuclear proliferation as coincident with more and more nations coming online with viable nuclear warheads.
But countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains one of our highest
priorities, and there is the real potential of undermining that goal. Simply stating, without evidence,
that U.S. actions have no significant impact on proliferation amounts to ignoring the issue.
Of course we have an impact!  If I were a nation with whom the US disagrees about letting have nuclear weapons, I would make sure to know how many warheads the US had in stock at all times, in order to justify myself on the world stage.  Pointing out hypocracy seems to have an effect on people for some reason.

This is especially the case given that the United States has exceptional technical talent in areas
relevant to nonproliferation. The national laboratories have vast expertise in assessing nuclear
programs of all kinds; in tracking nuclear materials and supporting their protection, control, and
accounting; and in applying nuclear forensics. They provide training for international inspectors,
participating in inspections as appropriate, and maintain collaborations with counterparts
worldwide. Moreover, they have the analytic tools of the scientific method and can evaluate
competing hypotheses about what does or does not contribute to enhanced proliferation. Yet rather
than benefiting from this national capability, their expertise remains essentially untapped as
different options for U.S. policy are assessed. This is an unnecessary oversight and a missed
opportunity. The existing national capabilities should be explicitly charged to evaluate the
international impacts of different nuclear weapons options being considered.
You have to admit, we know a lot about nuclear weapons.  Getting the rest of the world to believe us when we try to distribute knowledge about proliferation interactions is going to remain a hard sell as long as a) our government is focussed on building better weapons and b) we keep telling countries that we don't like that they aren't allowed to have any.

It is all the more urgent that we do better as technical developments heighten, rather than
diminish, the prospects for nuclear weapons proliferation. The knowledge, people, and materials
associated with nuclear programs are spreading relentlessly. Indeed, a central reason why non-
proliferation is among the highest security priorities for many countries is that there is already an
enormous source of materials and expertise that can contribute to proliferation. Moreover, the
community of latent nuclear states has greatly expanded over the years and will continue to do so.

It is therefore urgent that we collectively focus on the most effective means to counter the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, including fully using the United States’relevant technical capa-
bilities. Doing so will call more for intelligence and law enforcement—that is, for cooperative
measures—than for traditional deterrence or military coercion. Partnering with nations around the
world currently offers the most promising approach to the growing threat of nuclear arms.†
– Raymond Jeanloz


*The United States Nuclear Weapons Program: The Role of the Reliable Replacement Warhead(www.aaas.org/news/releases/
2007/media/rrw_report_2007.pdf ). †This editorial is adapted from R. Jeanloz, Nonproliferation Threat of Nuclear Weapon
Programs (presentation at the AAAS Symposium on Ethical Issues in Nuclear Weapon Programs, Washington, DC, 16 February
2007) (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5831/1541/DC1).

Raymond Jeanloz is
a professor in the
Departments of Earth
and Planetary Science
and of Astronomy at the
University of California,
Berkeley, and chairs the
U.S. National Academy of
Sciences’ Committee on
International Security
and Arms Control.


I'm not advocating that all nations should have access to or be handed out some nuclear warheads to play with.  Instead, I think that the United States should be the ones leading the rest of the world into a future where we should never have to worry about nuclear weapons.  There are unstable leaders, but the US has for far too long been dictating international politics without giving anything up in return.  Trust begins at home--we can trust the scientists of other nations to follow in our footsteps and grasp the power of nuclear energy, and they will trust us more in return, especially if we begin reducing the number of warheads we currently stock.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2007, 03:13:46 PM »
It would be nice, but I think some realpolitik is in call here.  No one that matters in the game is going to rid themselves that which almost garantees their survival.  The strategically best option the US has, so as not to diminish out own defence,is to update the weaponry so that it can be of best use against our current enemies. 

I would love to get rid of them myself, perhaps through some Orion Drive action?
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is an apple, it starts with an r?:
What is 5 plus 5?:
Which Dakota has the city of Fargo:

anything
realistic