Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Madman198237]

It depends on the technology, but in general, Antioch, you're wrong.

It took the US and its industrial and scientific might (Along with dozens of refugee scientists and Albert Einstein's encouragement) more than a year to build a relatively weak atomic bomb. Granted, this was in WWII, but no country is likely to rush the program that fast, nor could they do open tests like America could. Basically, it's almost impossible to sneak a nuclear test somewhere, because the seismic activity and radiation generated is highly noticeable, even when detonated underground.

[Draignean]

It depends on the technology, but in general, Antioch, you're wrong.

It took the US and its industrial and scientific might (Along with dozens of refugee scientists and Albert Einstein's encouragement) more than a year to build a relatively weak atomic bomb. Granted, this was in WWII, but no country is likely to rush the program that fast, nor could they do open tests like America could. Basically, it's almost impossible to sneak a nuclear test somewhere, because the seismic activity and radiation generated is highly noticeable, even when detonated underground.

Madman, he specifically stated nuclear infrastructure. I don't think he's talking about Guatemala here, I think he's talking about existing nuclear powers. If you already have the know-how and a couple of nuclear reactors, I think the timeline is about nine-months, at least judging by the Manhattan project.

So, sure, you can stop a minor nation from developing nukes, but it'd be damn hard to make sure that a nuclear power never made another bomb.

[Harry Baldman]

"Another bomb" isn't really the main problem though, is it? It's "enough bombs to cause a nuclear apocalypse", which I imagine would be more difficult to create under conditions of strict secrecy - fully dismantling what's already made seems like it'd eliminate a realistic chance of a massive nuclear exchange.

It'd also be the best test of whether a well-armed global community really is a polite global community.

[Draignean]

"Another bomb" isn't really the main problem though, is it? It's "enough bombs to cause a nuclear apocalypse", which I imagine would be more difficult to create under conditions of strict secrecy - fully dismantling what's already made seems like it'd eliminate a realistic chance of a massive nuclear exchange.

It'd also be the best test of whether a well-armed global community really is a polite global community.

Quite true. Individual nukes certainly aren't the same threat as an apocalyptic barrage, but one could use the cold war logic and say that it's actually safer to have enough nukes for MAD to work- as opposed to just enough to wipe a few key cities off the map.

Heck, you give me a vote and I'll say try it, but I do have concerns about how on earth a team of investigators could police the situation.

[Teneb]

We need to get the Illuminati on the case. No nuke would be hidden for long. /s

But yeah, as much as I'd love a nuke-free world, I don't know if that is even possible. Also wonder how many wars the existence of nukes has averted.

[smjjames]

We need to get the Illuminati on the case. No nuke would be hidden for long. /s

But yeah, as much as I'd love a nuke-free world, I don't know if that is even possible. Also wonder how many wars the existence of nukes has averted.

It's certainly prevented direct clashes between the Soviets+their alliance and the US+our alliance. Plus probably China and the US and likely between Pakistan and India.

One thing we can definetly say is that it has prevented a clash of major powers of the likes of both world wars, however, the UN has definetly played a role and the US led alliance has played a role as well. So, it's murkier than just purely 'did the existence of nukes prevent wars?'.

[Harry Baldman]

I think policing it might be mostly unnecessary if an agreement is reached, as the possibility of being bombed right back robs nuclear weapons of any actual practical use (you only really get some to join the international cool kids' club), and it'd only get worse over time if nukes were outright banned from use worldwide. Sure, you could create a bunch of them and shoot the other country with them, but that's basically putting yourself on every other power's shitlist for the foreseeable future, which thanks to your functional inability to bomb the world (at least while keeping your intent to do it a secret) still means you're screwed.

Plus a lot of the Cold War stuff barely works anymore anyway. I imagine soon it'll get to a point where having them around would pose as much of a danger to yourself as they would to anybody you might prospectively attempt to explode.

We need to get the Illuminati on the case. No nuke would be hidden for long. /s

But yeah, as much as I'd love a nuke-free world, I don't know if that is even possible. Also wonder how many wars the existence of nukes has averted.

I dunno, seems like a lot of the wars just got outsourced to third-world countries instead. And the fact we nearly blew everything up at least twice during the Cold War doesn't fill me with confidence about the virtues of MAD.

On the other hand, no global-scale conflicts (aside from the Cold War, of course) is a pretty big plus. Whether that's just because of MAD, however, is hard to conclusively say without diving into some serious alt-history.

[feelotraveller]

In the meantime countries that insist on maintaining nuclear arsenals will increasingly become international pariahs.  Better than every tinpot nation ending up with the bomb...

[smjjames]

In the meantime countries that insist on maintaining nuclear arsenals will increasingly become international pariahs.  Better than every tinpot nation ending up with the bomb...

It's those same tinpot nations that is the reason why some are saying no to the agreement.

[feelotraveller]

The way I call it (no doubt controversial... ) all the countries with the bomb are tinpots.

[Antioch]

It depends on the technology, but in general, Antioch, you're wrong.

It took the US and its industrial and scientific might (Along with dozens of refugee scientists and Albert Einstein's encouragement) more than a year to build a relatively weak atomic bomb. Granted, this was in WWII, but no country is likely to rush the program that fast, nor could they do open tests like America could. Basically, it's almost impossible to sneak a nuclear test somewhere, because the seismic activity and radiation generated is highly noticeable, even when detonated underground.

There are several nations in the world that already have the required plutonium stockpiled and the capability to produce as much as they need more.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html (this source is from 2001 btw)

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isn-t-happy-n48976

[smjjames]

It depends on the technology, but in general, Antioch, you're wrong.

It took the US and its industrial and scientific might (Along with dozens of refugee scientists and Albert Einstein's encouragement) more than a year to build a relatively weak atomic bomb. Granted, this was in WWII, but no country is likely to rush the program that fast, nor could they do open tests like America could. Basically, it's almost impossible to sneak a nuclear test somewhere, because the seismic activity and radiation generated is highly noticeable, even when detonated underground.

There are several nations in the world that already have the required plutonium stockpiled and the capability to produce as much as they need more.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isn-t-happy-n48976

The thing is that they (with the exception of maybe Japan) aren't blocked by any sort of treaty as far as I'm aware, they chose not to build nukes.

Japan's just having the plutonium seems to be enough to rattle China, so, I suppose they wouldn't see the need to go further.

[Helgoland]

PTW.

Also, building a simple bomb is kinda straight-forward these days if you've got the necessary nuclear material. No testing needed.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh no, the last time I trusted the IAEA it got Mother Base blown up, not this time, no way. My words are backed by nuclear weapons!

[misko27]

Proponents are going "But this is just like those other treaties that eventually succeeded, like chemical and biological arms!"

No. Nuclear Power is, well, powerful. It completely and utterly changes the conversation about you as a country; behold North Korea, who became untouchable the day their test succeeded. Complete and total rejection by the nuclear powers makes this look weak.