Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why don't we just get rid of the UN and have a nuclear club?

  1. #1 Why don't we just get rid of the UN and have a nuclear club? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It seems to me like the only players that really matter as far as nuclear politics are concerned, are those who possess nuclear weapons already. Everything would be a lot simpler if they just met together and decided what was going to happen. It's not like anybody could stop them from enacting their decisions.

    Why bother to have this flimsy organization that really can't put its own rules into effect anyway? (It seems like the USA and others pretty much only obey the resolutions that they like, or that favor them.) If the nuclear club passed a resolution, they'd probably be able to actually get people to follow it. If a bunch of podunk countries, like Nigeria, Bolivia, and Bangladesh champion a resolution, it's hard not to laugh outloud. (Instead you just sort of laugh secretly). But if all the people who voted are major military/economic players that can genuinely hurt you if you make them feel disrespected...... that tends to change things.


    Of course, rule #1 you'd have to make at the outset: Nobody but those who already have nukes when the club starts can ever join the club.

    Rule #2 : If anyone else attempts to join the club (tests a nuke, or demonstrates nuclear ability), everyone in the club agrees to nuke that newcomer for their trouble. (At least one nuke each must be contributed to the attack)

    (( The idea is that nobody would try to join the club, or at most one country would try it, get made into an example, and nobody else would ever try it after seeing what happened. ))

    So..... I kind of know there may be problems with this plan, but I'm posting it anyway, and I want to hear them. Maybe rule #2 might be taking things too far?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Are you familiar with the nonproliferation treaty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

    Rule #2 is completely unworkable.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    It's also ridiculous since most Western nations have the technological ability and the resources to build nuclear weapons if they wanted to in a very short period.

    Ya and committing mass murder of civilians is always a workable foreign policy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Are you familiar with the nonproliferation treaty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

    Rule #2 is completely unworkable.
    Yeah, this treaty is good, but hardly full proof.

    Once a country has a bomb (somehow has managed to build one without anyone being able to prove they were doing it), everyone instantly forgives them for having violated the international laws. (Or at worst, we sanction them. )

    Pakistan and India weren't exactly given open permission to do what they did, but now they get a certain respect in international negotiations. Every Third World country wants to be like them, because we made it clear there was a way to break the rules and get away with it.

    What mechanism would you propose we use to change this?


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    It's also ridiculous since most Western nations have the technological ability and the resources to build nuclear weapons if they wanted to in a very short period.

    Ok, so let's start revising the idea. Instead of just allowing countries with a current nuclear arsenal, let's also allow those that are basically within range. For example: Japan is often considered to be a de-facto nuclear power because the amount of time they would need in order to build a nuke from their existing infrastructure is not very long.



    Ya and committing mass murder of civilians is always a workable foreign policy.
    We're talking about nuclear politics. How do you think MADD works? They only refrain from nuking us because we would nuke them back. That's genocide. Of course it's genocide.

    It turns out that you can only stop genocide with genocide. People try all the time to stop it using love, and it doesn't work for some reason.

    If you impose a rule about nukes, and don't use either genocide, or something nearly as extreme to enforce it, you can bet that everyone who thinks they have even the slightest chance of successfully subverting your rule will keep trying different ways to do it until they get lucky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Are you familiar with the nonproliferation treaty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

    Rule #2 is completely unworkable.
    well really the only members of that treaty that matter are the ones with nukes, that would be the U.S. France, Russia, China, and Great Brittan. and if the "nuclear club" was formed with just those 5 then no one could challenge them even if everyone else with nukes combined against them. of course that would be a little good and a little bad, the good thing is that when there is a concentration of power stuff gets donw, during the cold war we first made our steps into space, and if a group like this was formed a lot of people would be pissed for a short time but things would get DONE.

    of course there is a multitude of arguements against that position such as that the group would be easily corrupt and all those other problems. and i agree, but my sole arguement in support of the "nuclear club" is that if there were only between 5-10 countries that did the thinking and debating then descisions would be made (relatively) quickly and as a result there would be great advances in science in the non-nuclear countries that would start a nuclear vs. non-nuclear cold war to compensate for the scale-tipping ower of the proposed club.

    in general i support the idea of it, but i wouldn't want to be anywhere near earth if the second cold war went hot. humans are just too stupid to use nuclear weapons corectly, they stick em in bombs that can wipe any country smaller than india off the map. the best way to use nuclear technology for war is indirectly for powering high energy weapons.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Fuel-Air bombs are plenty of bang for much fewer bucks, and no nuclear radiation, if you want to commit genocide. Plus, anyone can make one.

    But nobody's mentioning the REAL factor that defines the difference between a power, and a superpower. I'll give you a hint: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest and most powerful flying force, by a fairly wide margin.

    Bonus points for anyone who can list the world's second largest and most powerful flying force.
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'd either go with Isreal, the UK, or China. - Final guess: Isreal.

    Nuclear war is the one we need to worry about, because it destroys the land and the people at the same time. (Makes the land uninhabitable). MADD would break down if it was over conventional weapons, because we wouldn't be as afraid to use those on each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I mean that, even a conventional weapon capable of annihilating over half the human race wouldn't result in MADD, because the few survivors of the holocaust would find themselves in an under-populated world full of natural resources and prosperity.

    It's the very fact that the survivors of a nuclear holocaust have nothing to look forward to that makes us afraid of it, not the death toll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    If the subject is not nuk fuel or the arms, then why should one discuss? . It is something else which counts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I dont quite understand the premise of this post to begin with. :wink:

    Whats the point of forming an Axis of Sociopathic Bullies?

    If countries with nukes dont get invaded why shouldnt every country get some?

    And if a club has an oligarchy over nukes, where will be the limit to their ultimatums?

    And if Country X has 100 vials of HyperEbola one hidden in each major city with a speeler agent to release it, are you going to threaten to nuke them if they do nuke research like you have?

    What if the rest of the world imposes an economic embargo on the Nuke-o-rama Cartel trading among themselves, would you favor threanening them with mass murder if they dont dance to the cartels will and stop their sanctions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    I dont quite understand the premise of this post to begin with. :wink:

    Whats the point of forming an Axis of Sociopathic Bullies?

    You know, when you put it in that light, the question actually does take on a whole new meaning for me. And at the same time, I think I have an answer: They would actually have to admit they were doing it.

    As it stands right now, the UN is just a ruse. If the big 5 don't like the resolutions it issues, they just don't follow those resolutions. However, they do follow the resolutions they like. It allows them to create a half credible illusion of doing the right things, or caring what the rest of the world wants/how the rest of the world feels.

    The truth is that they don't, and it's only by creating a situation where they have to be blatantly obvious about it that you can expose them to their own people for what they are.




    If countries with nukes dont get invaded why shouldnt every country get some?
    The odds of them getting launched increases more or less exponentially with the number of separate entities who can independently choose to initiate a conflict. (The more fingers on the button, the greater the distrust and potential for squabbles to get out of hand.)

    And if a club has an oligarchy over nukes, where will be the limit to their ultimatums?
    Very good point/question. As it stands, I guess the limit right now is that they don't want to be obvious about it. If their every move were automatically obvious, I don't know if that would limit them further, or limit them less....


    And if Country X has 100 vials of HyperEbola one hidden in each major city with a speeler agent to release it, are you going to threaten to nuke them if they do nuke research like you have?
    Yeah. I always forget about biological weapons. They're probably even *more* dangerous than nukes, if you include viruses and such.



    What if the rest of the world imposes an economic embargo on the Nuke-o-rama Cartel trading among themselves, would you favor threanening them with mass murder if they dont dance to the cartels will and stop their sanctions?
    We all know what happens.... the CIA falsifies evidence that you're trying to build a nuclear bomb, of course. In a nuclear club situation, they probably wouldn't need to bother to falsify anything, unless they just felt like it.

    The only rule when the USA invades a country like Iraq would be that they had to share the oil with China and Russia (and a few others)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Why don't we just get rid of the UN and have a nuclear c 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Rule #2 : If anyone else attempts to join the club (tests a nuke, or demonstrates nuclear ability), everyone in the club agrees to nuke that newcomer for their trouble. (At least one nuke each must be contributed to the attack)
    No country has the will to do this, regardless of any arguments as to why it might or might not be a good idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Good point. I hadn't thought about that part. If the USA ever acted on the treaty and actually nuked somebody, there would probably be civil war/revolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'd either go with Isreal, the UK, or China. - Final guess: Isreal.

    Nuclear war is the one we need to worry about, because it destroys the land and the people at the same time. (Makes the land uninhabitable). MADD would break down if it was over conventional weapons, because we wouldn't be as afraid to use those on each other.
    The world's second largest and most powerful Air Force is the United states Navy.

    China is third, Russia is fourth. Technically, their stated numbers put their combined Air power ahead of either The Air Force or the Navy by themselves, but they list fighter aircraft that are older than the aircraft we're using as target drones in Florida. Also, there are 22 aircraft carriers in the world. The U.S. owns 12 of them.
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •