Complete nuclear disarmament is possible
Russia and the USA are negotiating to replace the START treaty that expired at the end of last year, this should reduce US and Russian nuclear arsenals further once it is complete. Although this is a step many campaigns argue for complete disarmament. Such disarmament is desirable but is it possible? There are many obstacles. In the short term at least Britain is committed to keeping trident until 2040. The official nuclear powers seem no nearer total disarmament now than they have ever been, and there are more and more unofficial players. N.B. This is not about whether complete nuclear disarmament is desirable.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Anything and everything is possible
probability is something else.
But yes in a universal universe of discourse, all imaginable possibilities exist.
Will nuclear disarmament be reached in record time,ever,in the long-term?
there is great spontaneity in future events; a black swan can blindside you out of nowhere.
To claim that something cannot be done because it hasn't been done is to contradict yourself.There's always a first.
There has been some practical movement towards the idea; and only once nations are unanimous on it being desirable then only will the possibility happen.
possible but not going to happen in the near future
The arms race can only be drawn to a pause/halt if and only if every single nation in the world 'desires' and thinks of it as desirable. Right now nations, are invested in protecting their borders. Power is defined militarily and unlike Sparta there is inequality; nations need nuclear weapons to feel/be safe and powerful.
There are conflicts/tensions/squabbles among nuclear powers waiting to turn into wars all over the third planet. Whichever nation takes the first step in giving up nuclear weapons will be
asking/begging to be pounded to oblivion with no authority protecting her.
This is a unanimous vote or no-go situation.
it is sadly impossible for every nuclear power to just give up her nuclear weapons simultaneously.and give these weapons up to whom/what?
There are no concrete plans on what to do with nuclear weapons; nuclear waste has tremendous problems of disposal(with the added threat of being used to make dirty bombs) as it is; adding weapons to the pile is only asking for trouble.
It is not possible, the ten countries cannot afford to do it; precisely to keep the peace.
Weapons always become outdated and so fall out of use. When nuclear weapons are no longer the greatest power on earth then there is the possibility of disarmament. Once there are sufficent defencive technologies to prevent any nuclear weapons devistating cities then they will become irrelevent. Why waste money on building, storeing and eventually decomissioning very dangerous weapons if they are useless?
Someone will always try to have one
Nuclear weapons are the greatest deterrance, the holy grail for regimes that fear outside attack. They are not going to give up nuclear weapons or striving to have nuclear weapons just because everyone else gives up nuclear weapons. It would simply mean that the current nuclear weapons states would have even less influence over them and those 'rogue' regimes would now be able to blackmail the rest of the world as the threat of massive retaliation would have dissapeared.
Nuclear weapons are no longer the preserve of the perminant five members of the security council and as proliforation spreads it becomes much more difficult to have complete disarmament. There are essentially too many parties that have the capability to have nuclear weapons or have them already and too little gain out of disarming when you gain so much by being the only one with nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons create power. A country with the weapons is a country with power. If we throw ours away, we could be taken out by a country such as Iran and theres nothing we can do about it. Who says people play fair, follow the rules, do as they are told. Remember prior to WWII Germany was a suffering society with next to nothing. Say we had nukes back then. WWI just finished and its just "hey, no more nukes", then all the countries hold hands and sing happy songs skipping off into the sunset. But theres always someone, Nepoleon, Hitler, they want control. And they will build another nuke and keep it tucked away if they want to. Then they will unleash it when it is deemed right to do so.
Not to bring Iraq into this, because we all know they don't have nuclear weapons, but lets say they did. Lets just imagine and pretend that Iraq, a land of terrorists, has enough nuclear missiles to wipe out the united states. The leader would know we would see the nukes coming and launch our own at them. Knowing that, the leader wouldn't even change his mind. They are a culture of suicide for your country = glorification. It'd be like committing the most holy of deeds to them.
None-the-less if you don't agree with either of my "stories" you have to see that my point isn't whether this would be the nature of these societies or not, but rather understand that there will always be someone trying to get someway to control the earth. An agreement to rid nuclear weapons from the world would never fly
What do you think?