Posted on 11/02/2017 4:33:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Given North Korea's nuclear lunacy, what exactly are the rules, formal or implicit, about which nations can have nuclear weapons and which cannot?
It is complicated.
In the free-for-all environment of the 1940s and 1950s, the original nuclear club included only those countries with the technological know-how, size and money to build nukes. Those realities meant that up until the early 1960s, only Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear capabilities.
Members of this small club did not worry that many other nations would make such weapons because it seemed far too expensive and difficult for most.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States adhered to an unspoken rule that their losing Axis enemies of World War II -- Germany, Italy and Japan -- should not have nuclear weapons. Despite their financial and scientific ability to obtain them, all three former Axis powers had too much recent historical baggage to be allowed weapons of mass destruction. That tacit agreement apparently still remains.
The Soviet Union and the United States also informally agreed during the Cold War that their own dependent allies who had the ability to go nuclear -- including Eastern Bloc nations, most Western European countries, Australia and Canada -- would not. Instead, they would depend on their superpower patrons for nuclear deterrence.
By the 1970s, realities had changed again. Large and/or scientifically sophisticated nations such as China (1964), Israel (1967) and India (1974) went nuclear. Often, such countries did so with the help of pro-Western or pro-Soviet patrons and sponsors. The rest of the world apparently shrugged, believing it was inevitable that such nations would obtain nuclear weapons.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Who? Whoever can build them. Why? It makes it immensely more difficult for other countries to screw with you.
Who? Whoever is trusted by powerful friends to have them, or are powerful enough to otherwise fight those who do, and has serious reason to believe they’ll be needed.
Why? Odds of abuse, or lack of need, equals no nukes for you; responsible & necessary ownership allows. North Korea and Iran are making it very clear they want to kill people with nukes for the he11 of it, so will likely find out the hard way that the Big Boys will disallow it. Saddam’s Iraq was violently overthrown when it looked like he was building nukes, after invading neighbors. Syria gets its nuclear program bombed to smithereens periodically by Israel. India & Pakistan both have nukes, but aren’t going to molest anyone besides each other, which they won’t because of their nuclear standoff. Ukraine found itself a nuclear superpower by accident, and quickly gave them away lest it quickly become a target. Nobody is going to nuke Canada, who relies on the USA to provide such protection in that extremely unlikely case. All of Israel’s neighbors want to obliterate it yesterday, so the USA has quietly furnished nukes as appropriate as deterrent. And the big 3 nuke owners have so many they’re all “f u” to anyone saying they shouldn’t.
Nice summary!
We could just use fake
news [pics and videos] showing us giving nukes to everyone who’s with us. Hell, it works for everything else. ;)
If we DON’T manage to slap down, undermine, or otherwise remove N. Korea from the nuclear club, and prevent actors like Iran from getting there, the odds of a very significant nuclear war (100 or more warheads detonated) within the next 50-60 years go up drastically. Then it’s at least a 50/50 chance. The odds of a smaller nuclear exchange are even higher. If it’s not the Norks, it will eventually be the Iranians. Or the Egyptians. Or the Saudis. Or maybe someone not yet obvious. Only the details will differ.
Since I’m not likely to live more than another 25-30 years, I may not “see it”, if we fail. But the odds of my grandkids getting, at the least, radiation sickness, are another story.
Just look at what N. Korea is saying: That their lower level officers are authorized to strike the instant the first U.S. (etc.) weapon hits them. Never mind, for the moment, that this is the only rational plan they can have* (if they wish to continue in their blackmailing ways): The odds of a mistake or too hasty response are sky high.
*The Norks surely know that the US can largely decapitate their high level leadership, so, the “appropriate” deterrent is to make sure the response to a US attack is very fast and does not depend on top level authorization after the USD attack begins. In effect, the Norks have to fire away as soon as they detect, or think they detect, attacks from as close as our subs parked offshore, so they (the Norks) have only minutes to launch themselves. Otherwise, by the time they check with Pyongyang, both they and Pyongyang are rubble, or worse.
Now, I doubt the Norks can presently launch multiple nukes on that kind of short notice. I also doubt they will fail to get there, given a little more time.
As a good friend of mine, an engineer who once worked for TI’s defense products division, told me many years ago: “Even ‘Rocket Science’ isn’t really ‘rocket science’ anymore.”
“Given North Korea’s nuclear lunacy, what exactly are the rules, formal or implicit, about which nations can have nuclear weapons and which cannot?”
Easy.
The two countries who have more the 7,000 nukes each, and 1500 each deployed for immediate launch...
Get to decide.
When they don’t agree, that’s when there are issues.
What if the ultra-rich have mercenaries to operate nukes they have to blackmail all the governments of the world since the 1960’s. It would explain a lot.
I think most contemplative people realize that more countries admitted into nuclear club will result in an exchange in the future. We came close with Russia ourselves and only avoided destruction through careful diplomacy and sober thinking leaders who feared the repercussions. The Middle East and Asia have a history of lashing out without regard of the consequences.
so the USA has quietly furnished nukes as appropriate as deterrent.
“Furnished” in a broad definition. Akin to “here’s all the parts to a gun, go assemble it yourself.”
There will be no cites available for “open secrets” that everyone agrees is true but nobody can prove.
It is, I guess, as unproveable as ‘everyone agrees.’
But since, it is alleged, that Israel stole enriched uranium from the US Navy, it doesn’t sound like the US was supplying them.
I assume “stole” is a euphemism for “they were tipped off about an opportunity, guards were oddly absent at critical moments, and the ‘victim’ showed a remarkable disinterest in investigating the ‘crime’.”
Why not just give it to them? No need to go through all those machinations. I’m thinking also of the alien hunters who believe the Egyptians couldn’t have built the pyramids themselves, so aliens must have done it. The Israelis have shown all along that they have the intelligence and determination to build whatever they need to defend the country. Intimating that the US did it for them based on nothing more that ‘everyone agrees’ is no better than alien hunting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.