Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iraq announces they have developed nuclear weapons: Now what?

Rate this topic


konerko14

Recommended Posts

If a country(say Iraq) proves to the world that they have developed nuclear weapons, what is the next step for the other countries, like the US? Do they begin their research and development into creating nuclear weapons? Would Iraq be able to control the world now, since they could threaten anyone who disobeys them with their nukes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who intend to cause significant physical damage to U.S. people and property should not be allowed to gain and/or keep the practical means to do so.

How one stops them is something for the military to figure out.

Of course they shouldnt be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but a country can create them without other countries finding out. And once the country has nuclear weapons, who's going to start a war with them? Whats happens now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we assume that there is a good chance they will use them against the U.S., we should not allow them to keep such weapons.

If the US and others attack Iraq with warfare, Iraq will use their nuclear weapons. I dont think a trade barrier could be established either, since Iraq would threaten to use the nuclear weapons.

How could they get Iraq to hand over their nuclear weapons?

I doubt Iraq(or any country) would create nuclear weapons and give them up that easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that I don't understand. What is the point of developing a nuclear weapon? Sure, its a weapon, and sure, it can kill, but what is so special about a nuclear weapon?

A nuclear weapon, to the best of my knowledge, is pretty easy to make, and I'm surprised a terrorist hasn't yet made one. It requires nuclear material, which are in some surprising household goods, like smoke alarms. It also requires knowledge of making a bomb, which almost all countries have knowledge of.

The only reason why I sort of understand why a nuclear bomb is so scary is because of the pictures of what America (justly) did to Japan at the end of World War II. However, in order to make such a bomb, it requires, at least, a bomber aircraft, something which none of the rouge countries have (they only have rockets, as far as I know).

Iraq, and most other countries, have the power to attack us, because they already have "traditional" weapons. Should we give in to their demands, and engage in sacrifice, because they might attack us? Answer: of course not! If you don't know why, just ask and I can explain further.

So, is that to say that we weren't justified in taking out Iraq, even if they didn't have nuclear weapons? Yes, we had every right to take out the Iraqi government. The government did not individual rights, and freedom, and it would only have been a matter of time until they attack a richer, freer country (such as Israel). We are also justified, for the same reason, to take out every single dictatorships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nuclear weapon, to the best of my knowledge, is pretty easy to make, and I'm surprised a terrorist hasn't yet made one. It requires nuclear material, which are in some surprising household goods, like smoke alarms. It also requires knowledge of making a bomb, which almost all countries have knowledge of.

Not all materials, even nuclear ones, are created equal. Nuclear bombs require either Uranium 235, which is scarce and mixed up with the more common Uranium 238, or plutonium, which must be manufactured in a breeder reactor. Neither one is found in any common items.

There are lots of radioactive substances that can be obtained to make a dirty bomb. But that's not the same thing.

The only reason why I sort of understand why a nuclear bomb is so scary is because of the pictures of what America (justly) did to Japan at the end of World War II. However, in order to make such a bomb, it requires, at least, a bomber aircraft, something which none of the rouge countries have (they only have rockets, as far as I know).

You can fit a nuke in an artillery shell (a small nuke, true). That aside, what's to stop any terrorist from loading a bomb disguised as something innocuous, say inside a crate marked "DATES," on to a private jet provided by some terror-sponsoring government, then flying that plane over a city and detonating his nuke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US and others attack Iraq with warfare, Iraq will use their nuclear weapons.
And if the U.S. does not attack this country? In your hypothetical, are you assuming that they are very likely to attack, or that they are unlikely to attack the U.S.?

If we thought they were probably going to harm us, we'd have to be sly about tricking them somehow, and destroying what we can before they can do so. If we assume that it is highly likely that they will use their weapons against us, then the question becomes analogous to: what does a cop do when a deranged person, who wants to kill the cop, lifts a loaded gun and points it at the cop.

On the other hand, if we assume that it is unlikely that this country will attack us, then the example changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a country(say Iraq) proves to the world that they have developed nuclear weapons,

Unlikely Iraq will have them soon but this question can be treated in the abstract.

what is the next step for the other countries, like the US?

The thing is, how "other countries" should act and how the US should act are not necessarily the same things. I don't think Sri Lanka needs to act the same way that Japan would act and I doubt most nations would act as America should act.

Do they begin their research and development into creating nuclear weapons?

Fact: 40 nations in the world are capable of going nuclear, all you need is a single nuclear reactor. The science of getting a bomb to work is well known as well, its more a matter of funding and getting resources for delivery vechicles. For example, Bulgaria has a reactor and if they wanted, they could start the process of getting a nuclear weapon, it will just take a long time. (And we are not even talking about the right kind of delivery vehicle) In contrast, Japan (which currently has no nukes) will take no longer then a year in order to develop its own weapons capacity.

So whether other nations begin developing their own nukes would depend on their capability and cost to do so.

Would Iraq be able to control the world now, since they could threaten anyone who disobeys them with their nukes?

No.

Just having one Nuke is not enough to "control" the world. Intimidate, yes, but control, no. Keep in mind that so many other factors would need to be taken into account, like the ability to take the nation by land. Also, if other powers get nukes, then they can simply deter the state that got nukes like it was during the Cold War.

And its not like one Nuke can end civilization, kill many people yes, but it takes a real arsenal on the scale of the USSR in order to carry any weight.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the U.S. does not attack this country? In your hypothetical, are you assuming that they are very likely to attack, or that they are unlikely to attack the U.S.?

If we thought they were probably going to harm us, we'd have to be sly about tricking them somehow, and destroying what we can before they can do so. If we assume that it is highly likely that they will use their weapons against us, then the question becomes analogous to: what does a cop do when a deranged person, who wants to kill the cop, lifts a loaded gun and points it at the cop.

On the other hand, if we assume that it is unlikely that this country will attack us, then the example changes.

The essential problem is calculating the likelyhood of another country using nuclear weapons against the US on a first-strike basis. If we really know the country is going to nuke us, of course the risk in using military force against that country is zero. At worst the nuke will still be used, which they were going to do anyway.

The problem is that trying to figure out this likelyhood in the real world is almost impossible. This is complicated because the countries with nukes who might threaten the US are usually non-transparent dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. And the stakes are incredibly high, because if you are wrong and you preemptively attack a nation to keep it from attacking us and it uses nukes in defense, and then we find out that our intel was wrong, we have essentially caused a nuclear attack against our own citizens which would not have otherwise happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the U.S. does not attack this country? In your hypothetical, are you assuming that they are very likely to attack, or that they are unlikely to attack the U.S.?

I dont know. I would think a country like Iraq that values destruction or a country that seeks power will probably be somewhat liberal on the use of its first nuclear attack- to prove a point and to show others what will happen if you disobey them. Another reason they will want to use it somewhat quickly is because Im sure they will know that other countries will be planning someway to destroy their nuclear weapons. Another reason is that they will know other countries are going to attack them soon, and Iraq will want to weaken them significantly initially. Whether they drop the bomb on the US or another country, I dont know, but I would guess they would favor dropping it on the US first because we're the most powerful.

By the way, does the US have any nuclear weapons now? Does any country?

Edited by konerko14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, does the US have any nuclear weapons now? Does any country?
Yes, the U.S. and Russia have a large number of nukes. France, U.K. and China have some too. I'm not sure if Israel officially claims to have nukes, but they have them. India and Pakistan probably have a few, and definitely know how to make them -- they've tested them. North Korea claims to have them. (check the Wiki for references)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons although they have never denied it either, and it is a certainty that they actually have them.

The whole Israeli nuclear affair in a way is rather disconcerting, by the way. The Israelis basically either stole or were "given" nuclear material and expertise in order to make nuclear weapons by the US. Regardless of what the current state of US-Israeli relations is, such actions by the US are at best suspicious and at worst a massive breach of national security and self-interest.

Edited by Vladimir Berkov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the U.S. and Russia have a large number of nukes. France, U.K. and China have some too. I'm not sure if Israel officially claims to have nukes, but they have them. India and Pakistan probably have a few, and definitely know how to make them -- they've tested them. North Korea claims to have them. (check the Wiki for references)

Well that changes my whole outlook on this topic. I thought they all were trying to prevent nuclear weapons from existing anywhere. I dont understand why a certain few countries are allowed to have them, and others we spend billions of dollars to prevent the development. Are France, UK, China, India and Pakistan countries we can trust, but Iraq and North Korea the opposite, is that it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that changes my whole outlook on this topic. I thought they all were trying to prevent nuclear weapons from existing anywhere. I dont understand why a certain few countries are allowed to have them, and others we spend billions of dollars to prevent the development. Are France, UK, China, India and Pakistan countries we can trust, but Iraq and North Korea the opposite, is that it?

Yes, that is exactly it, there is a double standard which we insist on maintaing for the good of the world. It is a better world if some nations (the US) are allowed nukes and others (DPRK) are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that changes my whole outlook on this topic. I thought they all were trying to prevent nuclear weapons from existing anywhere. I dont understand why a certain few countries are allowed to have them, and others we spend billions of dollars to prevent the development. Are France, UK, China, India and Pakistan countries we can trust, but Iraq and North Korea the opposite, is that it?

As far as I know, the point is to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, because the more nations that have them, the more likely an unstable leader with nuclear weapons is to rise. For that matter, there are then those nations that are already aggressive, with leaders that are just about universally recognized as more likely to use them without provocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essential problem is calculating the likelyhood of another country using nuclear weapons against the US on a first-strike basis. If we really know the country is going to nuke us, of course the risk in using military force against that country is zero. At worst the nuke will still be used, which they were going to do anyway.

The problem is that trying to figure out this likelyhood in the real world is almost impossible. This is complicated because the countries with nukes who might threaten the US are usually non-transparent dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. And the stakes are incredibly high, because if you are wrong and you preemptively attack a nation to keep it from attacking us and it uses nukes in defense, and then we find out that our intel was wrong, we have essentially caused a nuclear attack against our own citizens which would not have otherwise happened.

Is it 'almost impossible' to predict? It is only a matter of time before any non-free statist country/dictatorship uses force against more free countries as it runs out of resources. It is the only way they can survive. We have a right to take them out if they do not respect freedom. The only way they can gain the resources necessary to pose any real danger is if we sit back and let them use force to rob and loot their own people and neighbours to build their arsenal. Worse, if we trade with them and pretend they are our friends. Worse still, if we give them charity for their poor defenseless people! The fact they already possess these nukes is testament that we actively let it happen. When it happens it will be our own fault.

I use 'we' and 'our' in the context of 'our' government (that 'we' elected to secure our freedom)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had a statement/policy along the lines of

If a nation fulfills conditions X, then "we" will allow that nation to obtain nukes. If a nation doesn't fulfill conditions X, then we will blow up (literally?) their ambitions.

then we'd just ... blow up their ambitions?

Without that statement/policy, IMO the solution might be more messy/diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it 'almost impossible' to predict? It is only a matter of time before any non-free statist country/dictatorship uses force against more free countries as it runs out of resources. It is the only way they can survive. We have a right to take them out if they do not respect freedom. The only way they can gain the resources necessary to pose any real danger is if we sit back and let them use force to rob and loot their own people and neighbours to build their arsenal. Worse, if we trade with them and pretend they are our friends. Worse still, if we give them charity for their poor defenseless people! The fact they already possess these nukes is testament that we actively let it happen. When it happens it will be our own fault.

I use 'we' and 'our' in the context of 'our' government (that 'we' elected to secure our freedom)

It is not "only a matter of time" in regards to nukes, or even force for that matter. In particular with nukes, as it is what we are talking about, there has never been a non-free country which has used nuclear weapons in warfare. Ironically only the US, a "free" country has used them.

Even statist countries see the risk that the use of nukes poses to them, and even though often these countries fight in conventional wars they hold back the use of nukes (as do "free" countries, like the US, Britain, France, etc.) because of the potential risk.

That is why provoking an attack, even on a non-free country which might result in the use of its nukes is dangerous, because it is by no means assured that such a country would otherwise ever use its nuclear arsenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it 'almost impossible' to predict? It is only a matter of time before any non-free statist country/dictatorship uses force against more free countries as it runs out of resources. It is the only way they can survive. We have a right to take them out if they do not respect freedom. The only way they can gain the resources necessary to pose any real danger is if we sit back and let them use force to rob and loot their own people and neighbours to build their arsenal. Worse, if we trade with them and pretend they are our friends. Worse still, if we give them charity for their poor defenseless people! The fact they already possess these nukes is testament that we actively let it happen. When it happens it will be our own fault.

I use 'we' and 'our' in the context of 'our' government (that 'we' elected to secure our freedom)

It is not "only a matter of time" in regards to nukes, or even force for that matter. In particular with nukes, as it is what we are talking about, there has never been a non-free country which has used nuclear weapons in warfare. Ironically only the US, a "free" country has used them.

Even statist countries see the risk that the use of nukes poses to them, and even though often these countries fight in conventional wars they hold back the use of nukes (as do "free" countries, like the US, Britain, France, etc.) because of the potential risk.

That is why provoking an attack, even on a non-free country which might result in the use of its nukes is dangerous, because it is by no means assured that such a country would otherwise ever use its nuclear arsenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the US used them morally. They have the right to use whatever means necessary to limit American casulties, destroy the opposition and end the war.

The difference between the statist countries is they have not used them only out of fear and lack of enough artillery because they know they can't win against the US and its allies.

The essential problem is not calculating or figuring out the likelyhood of them using nukes but when. Since there is no doubt about their threat to individual rights and freedom, we have every right to dismantle any weapons they have by any means. Unfortunately, our governments seem to have more altruistic concern for their civilians rights than their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the US used them morally. They have the right to use whatever means necessary to limit American casulties, destroy the opposition and end the war.

Not every means, the right of a nation to self-defense is not an unlimited right. To some extent there is a moral duty to limit "innocent" bystander casaulties where possible, although the fact there are such casualties is not itself a moral wrong.

The difference between the statist countries is they have not used them only out of fear and lack of enough artillery because they know they can't win against the US and its allies.

I don't see it as an authoritarian/democratic divide. All nations are hesitant to use nukes for exactly the same reason: retaliation. The US was afraid to use nukes in Korea and Vietnam because of potential retaliation by China and the USSR. The USSR and China were afraid to use nukes because of the USA, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...