While everyone in theory would like nuclear disarmament, do you ever think it will actually happen? The world's current nuclear stockpile. For America and Russia it's total warheads, not active. All numbers approximate. Russia: 12,000 America: 9,000 France: 250-300 United Kingdom: 160-200 China: 150-300 India: 80 Pakistan: 80 Israel: 100-200 North Korea: possibly 1 or 2 (several European nations also take part in NATO weapons sharing of American bombs) Now the question is, do you think nuclear disarmament will ever happen. While most countries in the world don't seek out nuclear weapons, what about the few left that do? And more importantly what about the ones who already have them? South Africa is the only country to ever voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, but it only had 5, and once the paranoid apartheid government fell the new government saw no need to have them. However ever country that does currently have nuclear weapons is generally a power player in the world/region. Will any country that already has them ever give up nuclear weapons? Even though they have the power to destroy the world, they're also by far the biggest deterrent a country can have. Is there anything possible to get countries to disarm together, or will the world forever be nuclear.
Giving up such a weapon would be a poor move for any state that has them. Global politics has been a cycle of rising and falling powers for centuries and centuries. The goal is to hold as much power as possible and whats more powerful than a nuke?? Especially now with how non-proliferation has failed so pathetically. Nobody in the West would get rid of them as long as China and Russia have them, and vice-versa. India and Pakistan are constantly at eachothers throats. Isreal needs deterrence in its situation and with N. Korea and Iran as rising threats, thats another thing all nuclear armed states need to consider
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate example unfortunately of one person ruining it for everyone, the second the first bomb went off every major country started to scramble for their own arsenal.
I think its kind of unfair that the U.S. always tries to get everyone else to give up their weapons when we're not willing to do the same.
Uuuh no, it's mostly us and our butt-buddy, Israel Immediately after the National Security Strategy was announced in September 2002, the US moved to terminate negotiations on an enforceable bio-weapons treaty and to block international efforts to ban bio-warfare and the militarization of space. A year later, at the UN General Assembly, the US voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US voted alone against "observance of environmental norms" in disarmament and arms control agreements and alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East--the pretext for invading Iraq. A resolution to prevent militarization of space passed 174 to 0, with four abstentions: US, Israel, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. a negative US vote or abstention amounts to a double veto: the resolution is blocked and is eliminated from reporting and history. ~
I think signatories to the NPT will have nuclear weapons indefinitely. I think those who are not signatories of the NPT will have nuclear weapons for longer than indefinitely. There will come a point when the main countries (Russia/US) will have none. There will come a point when the other signatories of the NPT will have none too. 50/100 years who knows. Nuclear disarmament Lets hope the none signatories to the NPT do not replace the signatories to the NPT in the No. of stockpiles they have. Israel isn't a signatory to the NPT so can basically do what the hell it likes.
Yes and we also never agreed to not strike first, but thanks for ignoring the fact nearly every country in the world is signatory of NPT. Also, you leave out the fact China and Iran have also along with the US have signed but refused to ratify. Iran is meh, but considering China will be our next superpower rival within 20 years, you think maybe there's a more geo-political reason to why we didn't? Or how about the PTBT, what about the fact we did try to limit nuclear testing and France said fuck you, and also has tested more nuclear weapons since 1991 then we have. We haven't signed the treaty yet we didn't test a single weapon since 1991, why don't you get on France's ass.
Nuclear stockpiles will be maintained as long as some one feels it is in their interest to have them. Whether or not the rational that supports this interest is sound is the question that could ultimately lead to reason. Would we be safe to make the decision that South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand have made. How safe are South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, it doesn't appear to me that these countries have reason to be wringing their hands in terror that some nuclear armed state will come swooping down upon them.
it makes it a little difficult to have genuinely peaceful relations between countries when some have the capability to blow the entire world to bits.
