Which countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Skroe]

Yet my point still stands, show me the date in history when nuclear power, attacked and dismantled another nuclear power (WW2 style), the poking you talk about (China and India, Georgia and Russia, etc) is meaningless. Idc about any of those countries, my country is just shit hole, a colony for the capitalists slavers.

Also my avatar is just a taunt for, lets be polite, less intelligent beings who are easily distracted by that. Atleast I know who am I discussing with :-)

What? I'm not sure if I should be amused or disturbed. On the one hand I'm amused because this is something other than what it is... an internet forum... where "taunting" is... i don't know... something? On the other hand I'm disturbed because you think it's effective? That avatar, and your comment says something about you, Hatlatitla, not people reading it and not me. And what it says is deeply disturbing to be quite honest. It's weird. It's not acting as a draw to people who are "less intelligent beings". What it's saying is, in order looking your information box:

Hatlatitla
The Patient
Marginalize Me. I believe crazy crap.

Putting a hammer and scyile in an avatar, and then making comments about imperialism and fascist towards the west is about as new and creative as internet Anarchists. That is to say, welcome to 1996 Hat. Because I have seen people on the internet try and do, exactly what you think apparently, you're so smart and creative doing, since I was 13 years old.

All i can say is: good luck with whatever weird performance art / internet persona thing you're doing being effective. Now onto your main point.

Yet my point still stands, show me the date in history when nuclear power, attacked and dismantled another nuclear power (WW2 style), the poking you talk about (China and India, Georgia and Russia, etc) is meaningless. Idc about any of those countries, my country is just shit hole, a colony for the capitalists slavers.

No. Your point doesn't stand. Two nuclear powers have not attacked and dismantled a nuclear power because the need to do it int he way you mean has not prevented itself. That hasn't prevented countries from developing the capacity for it and being ready to use it. You should read this article.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...uclear-primacy

It's from one of the English language's premier foreign policy publications. But I'll give you the tl;dr version of it. Basically the reason Russia goes nuts over the US Missile defense shield is because while it is entirely inadequate for protection against a Russian first strike, it almost entirely ensures the negation of a Russian second strike. That is to say, if the US ever launched a first strike, the number of warheads that Russia would be able to get off the ground) because Russian launch sites are primary targets of First Strikes) would be in the low dozens... which is well within the range of the Missile Defense system (which as of today has 90 interceptors at two different sites, with 3 more sites on the way and an plan of firing at least two interceptors per warhead).

Oh and by the way. Your "country is a shit hole" as you put it because of the your own internal mismanagement. It's not "capitalist slavers" fault. Your 14% national unemployment reflects your country's inability to distinguish itself economically and attract foreign investment. That's your fault. Not ours. Findland - similar in size in population to yours, manages just fine.

[Wildtree]

Cue the chorus: [I]Until someone cheaaaaaaaaaaats. Which. Just. Happened..

And you cannot blame anyone for cheating when you consider how the ones cheating first have been the USA, and secondly I truly cannot blame anyone for the temptation of cheating, given the war mongering mindset of the USA for the last 50 years, with a spike in the last 2 decades.
Maybe just maybe the cheating isn't so much an action, instead it's a reaction...
Which is therefore rather proof how it would be better if all nukes would be eliminated. Will it happen? Likely not, certainly not.
But as the powers on Earth are balanced right now, it's once again almost comforting that others have some weapon power to keep the USA, who overpowers all other military, in check.
We are right now, somewhat back to the begin of the cold war, with reversed roles... This time it's the USA that's watched and gets kept in check.
Like it or not, but that's what it boils down to.

And if you extend it, to the USA and it's close allies, the others can be everything but blamed to crank up their forces once again...

[Deleted]

Nobody.

I keep hearing this a lot but you have absolutely no mechanism by which to ensure that no country will have nukes. It's pure fantasy.

And when some people DO want to prevent a country from having nukes (such as Iran) the same people in your camp will call them "warmongers", "violators of Iran's national sovereignty" and "neo-cons".

Pacifism doesn't work. The only way to ensure peace is to arm good guys and disarm the bad guys. That is if you haven't already fallen for another self-destructive lie: moral relativism.

[Yriel]

How do we know this? Because this is exactly what happened in Europe... exactly what happened, in the 1950s and 1960s, due to the emergence maturity of Soviet Nuclear Weapons pointed at Europe. Every single Prime Minister wanted their own strategic deterrent. That was causing Warsaw Pact states to also start their own programs.

Do you have any references for that ? Because it is the first time i heard that countries like the netherlands, denmark, austria, italy, ireland or spain ever wanted nukes. Even in germany we never wanted our own nukes in that time, we only wanted some involvement regarding the use of the US nukes after in several training scenarios they tended to bomb some of the bigger german cities (like Hamburg) for tactical reasons in case of a WP invasion.

[Skroe]

Do you have any references for that ? Because it is the first time i heard that countries like the netherlands, denmark, austria, italy, ireland or spain ever wanted nukes. Even in germany we never wanted our own nukes in that time, we only wanted some involvement regarding the use of the US nukes after in several training scenarios they tended to bomb some of the bigger german cities (like Hamburg) for tactical reasons in case of a WP invasion.

Yup I do!
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf

Start on Page 12. I suggest reading the actual PDF because I had to cut out the fascinating charts / graphs / footnotes.

Another interesting feature is that nuclear weapons that were withdrawn from two
German bases, two Turkish bases, and one Italian base in the mid 1990s were not
returned to the United States but transferred to the main U.S. base in those countries. In
Germany, the weapons were moved from Memmingen Air Base and Nörvenich Air Base
to Ramstein Air Base. In Turkey, they were moved from Akinci Air Base and Balikesir
Air Base to Incirlik Air Base, and in Italy, the weapons were moved from Rimini Air
Base to Ghedi Torre Air Base. These transfers appear to have been a consistent pattern:
Nuclear weapons were not withdrawn from the European theater when a U.S. Munitions
Support Squadron (MUNSS) was inactivated at national bases, but instead were moved to
the main U.S. operating base in each country. In all of these cases, the weapons continue
to be earmarked for “host nation use” and delivery by the national air forces.

In the case of Ghedi Torre Air Base, the situation is particularly noteworthy because the
base’s utilized weapons storage capacity is nearly double that of the other national bases.
Out of a maximum capacity of 44 weapon spaces in 11 vaults at Ghedi Torre, roughly 40
(more than 90 percent) are filled. It is the only known case in Europe where a national
air base stores more than 20 nuclear weapons. Half of the weapons at Ghedi Torre were
previously stored at Rimini Air Base, which ended nuclear operations in 1993. It is
unclear whether this means that the 6th Stormo Wing at Ghedi Torre has a particularly
large nuclear strike mission, or that another Italian wing also has a nuclear role.

The deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons on the territories of European countries is
arranged by a series of secret nuclear agreements between the United States and each host
or user country. The nuclear agreements fall into four categories:6


The Atomic Stockpile Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the United
States government and a user nation. It guides introduction and storage within a
country, custody, security, safety and release of weapons, as well as cost sharing.

The Atomic Cooperation Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the United
States and a user nation that provides for the “Exchange of Atomic information
useful for mutual Defense Purposes.”

The Service-Level Agreement is a bilateral technical agreement between the
military services of the United States and the user nation. It implements the
government-to-government stockpile agreement and provides details for the
nuclear deployment and use and defines joint and individual responsibilities.

“Third party” stockpile agreements are government-level agreements between the
United States, third nation and user nation. It guides stockpiling of nuclear
weapons within the territory of a third-nation for the use by NATO committed
forces of a signatory user nation.

Between 1952 and 1968, a total of 68 individual nuclear agreements were signed between
the United States and nine NATO countries. By 1978, 53 of those agreements remained
in effect, including nine service-to-service technical agreements governing the
deployment of U.S. Air Force nuclear bombs in as many countries (Belgium, Canada,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom).

Canada left NATO’s surrogate nuclear club in 1984, apparently followed by Greece in 2001.

As a result, nuclear agreements today are in effect with six NATO countries: Belgium,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, and United Kingdom. The code words for some of
the technical agreements (Service-Level Agreements) for the NATO countries that
currently store U.S. nuclear weapons are known: Pine Cone for Belgium; Toolchest for
Germany; Stone Ax for Italy; and Toy Chest for the Netherlands.8


Underground Nuclear Weapons Storage Logistics
The B61 nuclear bombs in Europe are stored in what is known as the Weapon Storage
and Security System (WS3), a nuclear weapons storage capability unique to the European
theater. This system enables the weapons to be stored underground in Weapons Storage
Vaults (WSV) inside the individual Protective Aircraft Shelters (PAS)9
on each base rather than in igloos in a centralized Weapons Storage Area (WSA). There are currently
204 WSVs in Europe, with a total capacity of 816 weapons (see Table 4).

Until now most independent analysts have assumed that each vault could store up to two
weapons. But declassified documents disclose, as do careful analysis of photographs of
the vaults published by the U.S. Air Force and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
(reproduced below), that each vault can store up to four weapons. In reality, however,
most bases utilize only part of their maximum capacity. The one exception is Ghedi
Torre Air Base in Italy, which stores 40 weapons in 11 vaults with only four spares (see
Appendix A).

The WS3 program started in 1976 when SNL began a “forward look” study to determine
how to better safeguard nuclear weapons deployed in overseas locations. At that time,
nuclear weapons were stored in igloos in a double-fenced WSA at the base. In 1979, the
effort produced a capability study on how to disperse the weapons for storage in the
hangars themselves. Full-scale development of the four-weapon vault system began in
September 1983, and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) was
carried out at Ramstein Air Base in November and December 1987. The program
entered production and deployment phase in August 1988 with a contract awarded to
Bechtel International Inc. The first location to achieve Initial Operational Capability
(IOC) was Büchel Air Base in September 1990. Incirlik Air Base was the last, in April
1998. Originally, 249 vaults were built at 15 sites in seven countries (see Appendix B).10
The WS3 system is made up of five functional areas:

The WSV, the mechanical portion of the WS3, is a reinforced concrete foundation and a
steel structure recessed into the floor of Protective Aircraft Shelters (PAS). The vault
barrier, barrier support, midlevel deck, and platform assembly are designed to be elevated
out of the concrete foundation by means of an elevator drive system to provide access to
the weapons in two stages or levels, or to be lowered into the floor to provide protection
and security for the weapons. The floor slab is approximately 16 inches thick. Sensors to
detect intrusion attempts are imbedded in the concrete vault body. A fully configured
WSV will store up to four nuclear weapons (see Figures 3 and Figure 4).11

The WS3 was originally envisioned to be a global system deployed at U.S. Air Force
bases where the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons overseas. A total of 437 vaults with a
maximum capacity of more than 1,700 weapons were initially planned for 28 locations
worldwide (36 vaults were planned for Kunsan Air Base in South Korea). Of these, 401
were in Europe with a combined capacity of 1,604 weapons. The scope of the program
was scaled back considerably, as were the number of WSVs at each base. In 1997, there
were 249 sites with a capacity of 996 weapons (even though only approximately 520 U.S.
and U.K. weapons were present) in Europe. Today, there are 204 vaults with a maximum
capacity of 816 weapons – nearly double the number of weapons actually deployed (see
Appendix A and Appendix B).

Also this:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012...Nuclear_Policy

Leaders from NATO’s 28 countries, meeting at a May 20-21 summit in Chicago, adopted a report that confirms the basic tenets of the alliance’s nuclear posture and lays the groundwork for future confidence-building talks with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons.

It describes the contributions of nuclear and conventional forces as well as missile defenses and arms control and finds that nuclear weapons remain a “core component” of NATO’s deterrence and defense capabilities.

In 2009, Germany had triggered an extensive debate about the continued deployment of about 180 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey by promising to advocate withdrawal of U.S. weapons from Germany. (See ACT, December 2009.) At NATO’s Lisbon summit in November 2010, the allies launched the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review, primarily to resolve differences among them on the future role of nuclear weapons and to define the mix between NATO’s different defense capabilities. (See ACT, October 2011.) The seven-page document that the NATO heads of state and government formally adopted on May 20 is the result of that review.

The report finds that NATO’s “nuclear force posture currently meets the criteria for an effective deterrence and defence posture,” but the allies also pledge to “ensure that all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective for as long as NATO remains a nuclear alliance.”

A senior Polish official said in a May 23 interview that this statement “is related primarily to the replacement of aging delivery means,” a reference to nuclear-capable aircraft in Europe that are scheduled to go out of service this decade. The U.S. life extension program for B61 gravity bombs in Europe, which will lead to the deployment of newer and more capable nuclear weapons after 2019, “is of secondary importance in this regard,” he said.

The report calls on NATO members “to develop concepts for how to ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies concerned in their nuclear sharing arrangements, including in case NATO were to decide to reduce its reliance on non-strategic nuclear weapons based in Europe,” but a senior official from a western European country argued in a May 21 interview that this does not represent a significant departure from the existing perspective on nuclear sharing arrangements. That perspective is described in the 2010 Strategic Concept, which was adopted at the Lisbon summit.

A senior French diplomat said on May 22 that “France’s nuclear deterrent will not be directly affected by discussions on the possible reduction of tactical nuclear weapons but we still have to decide in which format such discussions could take place.” France does not commit any nuclear forces to NATO and does not participate in the alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group.

Those who had hoped that NATO’s renewed commitment to territorial missile defense might lead to a reduction of the role of nuclear weapons were disappointed. Ahead of the summit, newly elected French President François Hollande had made protection of the French nuclear deterrent a precondition of France’s support for missile defense. As a result, the posture review report states that “[m]issile defence can complement the role of nuclear weapons in deterrence; it cannot substitute for them.”

[Deleted]

@ Skroesec, the question wasn't "what's realistic", it's just "what should be allowed", on a hypothetical level. So there's no reason to get sand in naughty places, pretty sure most people saying everyone or none are saying so because that's the ideal, not what's achievable.

[Risale]

You didn't give the option to select "None" as that is the only valid answer.

[flaggel]

None coming from an American. But if I had a choice id say United States and United Kingdom since they are mayne the only sane countries (to be completely honest) who wont go full blown radical and start a nuclear war unlike maybe China or Russia.

[Dezerte]

Perhaps only the most peaceful countries should have them?

[Airlick]

North Korea, Pakistan and Ukraine, if we look back at history these 3 nations have't caused much damage, especially on the scale of some of the others, I feel they should be allowed nukes.

I guess you're kidding or are simply ignorant, Ukrainians are fucking savages and have always been the same. Just read about UPA (let me drop it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraini...ia_and_Galicia ) and Cossack uprisings, or actually Cossacks in general. Also, those "poor protesters" that are rioting right now around Ukraine praise UPA bandits, that tortured thousands of civilians (just an example of their methods: they ripped pregnant womens' wombs, were taking out the babies and stuffing the women with hay and leaving them to die. I'm not even mentioning the "more civilised methods" like cracking kids' heads against a wall) as heroes. And you'd give those savages nukes? Lol.

On topic, I voted USA, UK, France, Russia, China and Iran. Reason? Achieving a stale-mate. We actually do have a nuclear stale-mate ever since the beginning of the Cold War, and it's the best thing that happened in our modern history.


[Infracted]

[SoundOfGuns]

Is there a particular reason you dont list germany? :I

[Xanjori]

I guess you're kidding or are simply ignorant, Ukrainians are fucking savages and have always been the same. Just read about UPA (let me drop it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraini...ia_and_Galicia ) and Cossack uprisings, or actually Cossacks in general. Also, those "poor protesters" that are rioting right now around Ukraine praise UPA bandits, that tortured thousands of civilians (just an example of their methods: they ripped pregnant womens' wombs, were taking out the babies and stuffing the women with hay and leaving them to die) as heroes. And you'd give those savages nukes? Lol.

On topic, I voted USA, UK, France, Russia, China and Iran. Reason? Achieving a stale-mate. We actually do have a nuclear stale-mate ever since the beginning of the Cold War, and it's the best thing that happened in our modern history.

Wow you must feel stupid, reply to a completely non-serious answer. Tell me, how angry did you actually get?

[Deleted]

None of course.

[Skroe]

@ Skroesec, the question wasn't "what's realistic", it's just "what should be allowed", on a hypothetical level. So there's no reason to get sand in naughty places, pretty sure most people saying everyone or none are saying so because that's the ideal, not what's achievable.

That's *entirely* my point though. Even at a hypothetical level, none, if achievable is not ideal. Eventually someone _will_ cheat. Unless you find someway and change human nature and ensure an impossible level of immutable commitment by successive leaders of every nation in the world, then someone WILL cheat it, even if in secret.

A fascinating book is the Next 100 Years by George Friendman, founder of STRATFOR, a premier private intelligence firm that many business and governments use.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Next-100-Y.../dp/0767923057

Some of predictions made in it are questionable (Basically the future US Army mid-century is composed of 3500 "Iron Man"s and the US Air Force becomes a Space Force, and the US relies on 3 orbital defense platforms for strategic deterrence).

But where the book shines is where his firm is relied upon: predicting relationships based on available data. And the US's main enemies in the middle of the 21st century? the alliance of a resurgent nationalist Japan and a nationalist Turkey. World War III, in his scenario, is between the US and this alliance, and lasts a couple of days and begins with the alliance's secret destruction of the US's orbital platforms from ordinance fired from the Moon.

I know it sounds ridiculous and some of it is pretty outlandish, but look at the countries he names: Japan and Turkey. And this was written a few years ago. What has happened since that time? Japan has taken a sharply more nationalist and assertive turn and Turkey's authoritarian streak has only further entrenched itself as the AKP finds itself under siege. Now is the future in the book likely to be our future? No of course not. But it does illustrate when compared to reality, how the quickly the course of a country can change. Maybe it's one new leader. Maybe it's one event. Maybe it's just a few years.

That is why even hypothetically "none", if achievable, is foolish. What happens when the wrong political leader comes to power in the wrong country, 20 years later and changes his mind? Everyone who could nuclear up, will nuclear up. That is my entire point. "What is realistic", is of course, it'll never happen. But hypothetically? It's undesirable. Why set up a system that basically invites cheating?

[Cyberowl]

None coming from an American. But if I had a choice id say United States and United Kingdom since they are mayne the only sane countries (to be completely honest) who wont go full blown radical and start a nuclear war unlike maybe China or Russia.

Yeah, Russia and China are always the bad boys, but somehow they haven't used their nukes yet, unlike another country

[Wildtree]

Yeah, Russia and China are always the bad boys, but somehow they haven't used their nukes yet, unlike another country

We have a sample rate of 2 nukes ever used so far, and on a data sheet that lists all countries on earth, whether they have, had or never had nukes, the scale would show 100% for one country alone.

So I trust anyone who never used any nukes? Nope.... certainly not.
But why should I trust that one country more that was the only one ever using nukes.
Even with open mind and willingness to give the benefit of the doubt. It's coincidentally also the only country on Earth that was more involved in various wars than any other nation, ever since the nukes have been dropped. And that I cannot take as evidence of trust. It's rather more likely because of others obtained nukes as well in the meantime, why they haven't used any ever since anymore.

[Eternal Ice]

None, but no option for that? So many votes for North Korea o.O

Due to a lack of "none" and "everyone" options, I voted for North Korea, China and the U.S, three peaceful countries know for their dislike of war and violence and that would never invade or attack other countries, the world is safe with nukes in their hands

[Skroe]

Yeah, Russia and China are always the bad boys, but somehow they haven't used their nukes yet, unlike another country

Russia is the only country to actually develop and deploy a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System as opposed to just theorizing about one. It is also the only country to develop a nuclear Deadman's Switch (Perimetr aka "Dead Hand") that is still active to this day.

China has never invested in it's nuclear weapons capability, in large part because their solid rocket motor technology was and remains extremely primitive compared to US and Russian designs, and liquid fueled ballistic missiles are mostly worthless. The weakness of their nuclear weapons speaks to a significant technology gap they've been unable to close despite years of trying (Solid Rocket Motor technology is extremely hard to master... India and Brazil have both blown up launch pads testing space vehicles with it).

The US used extremely primitive nuclear weapons in war, a war where strategic warfare was par for the course on all sides. It says more though that we've also pioneered controlling the spread of the technology, along with it's equally important sister, ballistic missile technology. And moreover we haven't used our immense technological lead on the rest of the world to develop the weapons we could be. Fun historical footnote: the Saturn V that took us to the Moon? The US worked very hard in 1967 and 1968 to convince the Soviets it wasn't a dual use Fractional Orbital Bombardment System on a scale they could not equal, just with a non-Military upper stage. Because with a different upper stage, that is what almost any advanced space launch system could be.

[Deleted]

North Korea only, because then they won't be so scared of the world and open their country.

[Uoyredrum]

North Korea Best Korea