How then does the desire of states to develop nuclear weapons fit with this beneficial view? By this argument, nuclear proliferation doesn't present any difficulty (nobody's going to use them) indeed it will add a sense of security to regions where there there may not be one currently.

That the nuclear club don't want new members suggests that there is a problem with states possessing nuclear weapons. There is a problem with programs intended to develop the know how. Are they elites or hypocrites or worse?

You can use a nuclear weapon if you haven't got one - one statement that can't be rationalised in diplomospeak. As the global political climate changes in the years ahead who knows what rationalisations will be made (eg access to oil reserves) to justify the presently unthinkable.

I am very surprised that the article had no mention of the India/China interface.
I believe that India's nuclear armament developments have been due, not in relation to confrontation between itself and Pakistan, but to apprehension about China's developing might. While that pair of giants progressively increase their nuclear arms capacity, the rest of the world has every reason to be apprehensive.

Maybe no country is likely, by initiating a nuclear attack, to bring about the possibility of its own destruction by reprisal. But there is every probability that it will go down fighting if it believes it is about to be destroyed.
Mistakes do happen - no matter how carefully managed a human enterprise is put together. And if nations and others find themselves already at rock-bottom with nothing to lose, as Al-Queda and similarly desperate entities already believe, nuclear hell becomes acceptable to them.

While USA and Russia might be off the agenda for the moment, there are many other opportunities for nuclear armaments disaster. The USA, by dictating nuclear disarmament by others while continuing to further develope its own capacity does nothing to diminish the terrifying problem.

Until 1945 only the US had atomic weapon. The following decade the USSR, China and France quickly developed their own programs. A decade later India and Pakistan surprised the world with their own and the saga continues.

When countries produce WMDs in tens, hundreds and thousands coupled with long range missiles, the vicious circle of fear drive other contries to develop their own. WMD technology is becoming more and more accessible.

The illusion of self defense is not a valid argument anymore as it is becoming more and more likely that:
a) a WMD is likely to be used by individuals or groups rather than governments/ sovereign states.

b) It is likely to be used as a 'hate statement' rather than a last resort. The likes of Bin Laden and the Timothy McVeigh just hate the rest of the world and could care less about the consequences as we have seen in recent years.

Now the real irony is in a likely scenario of WMD attack by a terror group, retaliation by a WMD cannot be an option. In an ideology based group if BinLaden used WMDs in Russia they will not go and Nuke Yemen because it is home town. In the Mcveigh scenario the US government will not respond with WMD on its own US states.

In history there are lessons for those who think.
The only win in a nuclear game is not to play. Collective conscious disarmement is what is needed. A single body managed by a 'restructured" UN is the only answer I can think of.

Food for thoughts.

Ash

Ay, there's the rub.

"The only win in a nuclear game is not to play. Collective conscious disarmement is what is needed. A single body managed by a 'restructured" UN is the only answer I can think of."

The unfortunate part of all this is that you cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. Asking people to disarm, all at the same time, and with no residual pockets of (terrorist?) capability is literally unachievable. People are not like that. Some nations/peoples hold grudges against perceived injustices for centuries, how do you propose to ask them to put all of those in a heap and burn them?

Regrettably, some form of continuing balance, admittedly unsatisfactory and still potentially dangerous, is the best we can ever hope for.

Hi Pericles,

My point is WMDs are not relevant to balance of power when the likely use scenarios is to be used by inidviduals or groups and not governments or sovereign states.

By the way, the armament race is back again since 2003 between the US and the Russians. The star wars program drove the russians to develop the SS24 (multi nuclear warhead capable of hitting 10,000 Kms targets in less than 25 minutes)..That proves my point.

The balance of power need to be balanced. You can develop x capability to defend your self, but when you develop too much of this capability to reach far targets or develop a capbility to destroy any defence capability of your opponent, the arms race starts again.

>>My point is WMDs are not relevant to balance of power when the likely use scenarios is to be used by inidviduals or groups and not governments or sovereign states.<<

I hear what you say, Ash, but it is hardly likely that a terrorist organization would take the trouble to deploy nuclear weapons if they didn't have some form of territorial objective, underlying which would no doubt be an economic purpose too.

I would agree with you that the expression "balance of power" becomes irrelevant in this context, but would suggest "significant deterrent" would substitute. My concern is the realities of disarmament, and the political quagmire that would be the governance of it. I'm unconvinced that the UN has sufficient credibility any longer to take on the task, and would hesitate to nominate another body.

It's here to stay. We can't wish it away, we have to learn to cope.

nukes are to small countries as colt 45's are to small men.
I belive the colt was called the peacemaker.

I think Gary’s article makes some quite valid points. Consider how few (if any) nuclear-armed nations have been subject to military attack (on their own soil) since WW2. Nukes are the buttons that no-one wants to push, and it seems that most countries have developed them for the purpose of defence rather than attack. It is a defence that greatly reduces the chances of conventional attack, making it more or less effective on that front - but at the cost that it is self-proliferating. And as we have seen, WMDs can also cause ‘preventative’ conflict - even in their (apparent) absence.

Unfortunately, history has shown that there are people who are willing to use their nukes (and not just eastern dictators) - even for attack and not defence; mass-death and destruction is not unthinkable to everyone. The law of patriotism implies that people X are worth more than the people Y, and this is *almost* universal. It is usually portrayed as honourable ("Dulce et decorum est..."), but is it not somewhere near the source of most conflict – pride/self-centredness? Unfortunately, two of the best deterrents, compassion and humility, are not prerequisites for nuclear armament.

On disarmament... what nation has ever chosen vulnerability, except in exchange for some significant reward or reduction in threat (even in surrender)? Hence the need for mutual disarmament and diplomacy... but how to deal with states that want power more than peace? England appeased the Nazis and allowed them power, The Coalition pre-empted Iraq and took their power...but both saw war. Is there a way around the WMD problem, neither proud nor appeasing, that avoids violence-preventing violence? To remove the arms and the tension but maintain the lack-of-war? I think compassion and empathy (even for the ‘tyrant’) are necessary... why kill people to prevent them doing something they weren’t going to do anyway? And is their armament a means to power, self-defence, or a voice? Listening is required, and honesty. But it is still so complex, and perhaps not soluble just with rational logic.

Will David surrender his sling while Goliath still stands, armed?

Today's Goliath has more and better slings, clubs, and all manner of conventional armaments than all the Davids combined. His conventional weapons are sufficient to lay low any opposition.
So why the hell does he insist on waving the nuclear club about as well?