Minimalist nuclear weapons powers

[patslatt]

President DeGaulle of France,an intellectual general,summed up the strategic value of the France's nuclear weapons programme in the 1960s by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". His point was that this modest nuclear "Force De Frappe" was sufficient to deter an attack on Western Europe by the Soviets,since most major Soviet cities,though not the whole population,would be at risk of destruction.

Now than many mid-sized countries like Iran and Korea are seeking nuclear weapons,an interesting strategic question is what would constitute a minimalist nuclear weapons programme that would be capable of deterring the traditional nuclear powers like the USA and China.This depends on how many cities the USA and China would be be prepared to sacrifice in a nuclear war. Two? Ten? Twenty? Would a dozen Hiroshima size bombs be enough for the minimalist programme? Delivery capability in terms of rocket ranges would be just as important as the bombs themselves.

And a key element would be psychological. A leader of a country who is believed to be crazy enough to order a nuclear weapons attack would be a far more credible threat and deterrent than a leader considered a reasonable person.

[seabhcan]

I've always thought that the world would be better off if every nation had a nuke or two. War would be impossible.

Nukes are a very democratic weapon - they destroy the centers of cities where the elites live.

[Fear Dorcha]

I've always thought that the world would be better off if every nation had a nuke or two. War would be impossible.

Nukes are a very democratic weapon - they destroy the centers of cities where the elites live.

I'm sure that the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki found it very democratic. Indeed!

[CelticAtheist]

China? A traditional nuclear power?
They couldn't even destroy the US with the amount they have, whereas the US could destroy China about 20 times over.

[moghroth]

A leader of a country who is believed to be crazy enough to order a nuclear weapons attack would be a far more credible threat and deterrent than a leader considered a reasonable person.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Bush, there is still time to put this to the test, maybe a little light Brighter than a Thousand Suns to brighten the Autumn of his reign.

[michael1965]

I've always thought that the world would be better off if every nation had a nuke or two. War would be impossible.

Nukes are a very democratic weapon - they destroy the centers of cities where the elites live.

The best way to prevent wars between countries is to encourage stable, liberal democracy. The problem with nuclear proliferation and letting every country have their own nukes, is that it seems to be the least stable, least democratic countries that want them the most. And the problem with stability is if/when govt. breaks down, what happens to the nuclear material then?

[Thac0man]

I think the question is proliferation, not only of weapons but of related highly radioactive materials. At no point in history up till now have non-governmental or quasi-governmental organiations been closer to attaining full or partial nuclear capability. What is the purpose in these groups having a deterant? If 'Islamic Jihad' or some other group that is only a nom de guerre uses nuclear material or (god forbid) nuclear weapons in an attack on a western target, minimal or not, someones country is getting nuked in reply. Once non or semi-state actors have access to nuclear capability the MAD argument goes out the window surely?

Regimes that can hardly maintain their own security cannot be expected to also secure a nuclear arsenal. Any totalitarian regime keeps it best forces close to the presidential palace, not the front line of any war. Secondly those regimes themsevles (if they have nuclear weapons) would be more totalitarian and controlling in order to marshal potential internal threats. The reality is that if they do that they would be acting in our interets as much as their own, and we would have to accept that.

I am for disarmament, not proliferation. Any argument to the contrary is dangerous or at best short sighted.

[Universal_001]

You know back in the idealistic days post-WWII, many advocated turning the entire worlds arsenal over to the UN

[CelticAtheist]

You know back in the idealistic days post-WWII, many advocated turning the entire worlds arsenal over to the UN

What a mess that would've been.

[Universal_001]

You know back in the idealistic days post-WWII, many advocated turning the entire worlds arsenal over to the UN

What a mess that would've been.

You've gotta remember that back then they had a totally different vision for how the UN would operate, see the now defunct military staff committee as an example, after a while the global solidarity faded and the nationalism resurfaced and they started snarling at each other again like the dangerous savages they/we are/

It would have prevented the entire cold war tho!