Obama seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons

[Syt]

"We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

Said by Ronald Reagan at his second inaugural address. So nothing new here.

Gorbachev, too, was a big fan of the idea of a world without nuclear arms. Mostly, because throughout the whole Cold War the Soviets were mortally afraid of a U.S. first strike.

[grumbler]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Who's going to start World War III?   Germany's sorta out of the business.

Last I looked Russia and China are still in business though.

Russia barely, Which leaves China who doesn't show much interest in destroying the global order that they profit so mightily from.

I have heard the economic argument before.
When was that? 1914?

Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.

[Tamas]

Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.

Well I was re-reading Guns of August the other day, and it mentioned that book from the period, which was pretty popular and argued that booming international trade and the interdependency it had caused meant the end of the era of big state vs. state wars. It was published in, say, 1912? 

Of course I know we live in very different times, but it should serve as a reminder that nothing is sure expect death.

[Camerus]

Are there other issues apart from Taiwan where the Chinese government can be considered revisionist?

FWIW, my own assessment of the general Chinese attitude on Taiwan is that, while most consider it part of China and believe it will one day rejoin the mainland, they also approach the issue with extreme pragmatism... which means they tend to take a long term view on it and don't seriously contemplate military action on the matter.  Thus I find it hard to imagine a war scenario that begins with it.

[Razgovory]

Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.

Yeah I mean the only one who actually remembers hearing those arguments was Grumbler.

But those arguments actually had some validity.  Much of the suffering by Germany, Russia, Austria and Turkey was because of the lack of international trade.  Britain and France suffered as well but had the naval power to keep their trade lanes open.  I'm sure the Chinese noted this as well.  So international trade didn't prevent the war but the lack of it certainly helped end it.

[Tamas]

Yeah but if you would actually understand history, not just read it, you would know that starting a war was seldom a cool-headed and wise decision. And, even more importantly, one of the reasons why your current rivals do not pursue military ambitions is that it is hopeless and highly unprofitable compared to peace, as you guys point it out. But going lenient on your own power can change that equtation, at least in their heads.

[Neil]

"We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

Said by Ronald Reagan at his second inaugural address. So nothing new here.

I've always thought that Obama was the intellectual equal of a former actor whose brain had started to disintegrate.

[grumbler]

Yeah but if you would actually understand history, not just read it, you would know that starting a war was seldom a cool-headed and wise decision. And, even more importantly, one of the reasons why your current rivals do not pursue military ambitions is that it is hopeless and highly unprofitable compared to peace, as you guys point it out. But going lenient on your own power can change that equtation, at least in their heads.

Agreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause.  It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.

So, while it is possible for nuclear weapons to serve the interests of peace (by making the enemy's worst-case scenario worse) they also can be destabilizing, if the enemy thinks vital interests make it worth risking the worst-case.

What is worse, nuclear weapons are in the hands of governments.  If the start of WW1 tells us anything, it is that governments are not very good at following the anti-war instincts of the country leader.  If Russia had just possessed a plan to mobilize against Austria only, the Great War may well have been averted (at least in that crisis).  I am sure you have read the "Willy-Nicky" letters.  The government had never really considered what they wanted their army to be able to do, though, and so there was no such plan.

[Syt]

Agreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause.  It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.

Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.

[Tamas]

And that is why you need enough nukes to guarantee the total anihilation of your enemy even if they manage to kill a good number of your nukes in their magazines.

Of course, this could work for the cold war era because it was simple with two opponents. Who knows what will happen when there will be multiple countries with big nuke stockpiles, and thus they can start hoping in victory through an alliance or something.

But if you are THE nuke powerhouse of the planet, the answer is not to seek disarmament of your stockpiles, but to prevent others from gaining nukes. If Russia could actually think forward, they would cooperate with the US on this.

[Jos Theelen]

I've always thought that Obama was the intellectual equal of a former actor whose brain had started to disintegrate.

Les extremes se touche

[The Brain]

Of course I know we live in very different times, but it should serve as a reminder that nothing is sure expect death.

Are you threatening me?

[I Killed Kenny]

Agreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause.  It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.

Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.

where can I read more about WP and NATOS "first strike" plans?

And did the French really said that if WP advanced into France they would deploy there one's nukes? Or was this a "suspicion?"

[Syt]

Agreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause.  It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.

Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.

where can I read more about WP and NATOS "first strike" plans?

And did the French really said that if WP advanced into France they would deploy there one's nukes? Or was this a "suspicion?"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/index.htm
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/

[Syt]

Also:

Warsaw Pact saved the world from nuclear world war

Many tend to demonize the Warsaw Pact nowadays claiming that it cast evil shadow over "the free world." However, the Pact became the only possible response against the aggressive actions of the then US administration when its efforts resulted in Western Germany's incorporation in NATO. The union, chaired by the USSR, allowed to keep the fragile balance in the world.

On May 14, 1955 governmental delegations of eight countries (the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania) signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. The treaty, which lasted for 35 years, became known in history as the Warsaw Pact.

One may have different approaches to that event. The geopolitical situation in the world has experienced enormous changes since that time. Many specialists say nowadays that the Soviet Union created the block which cast the evil shadow over the free world threatening the whole humanity. Generally, many bear a negative image of the Warsaw Pact, which in fact maintained the balance of forces in Europe for many years. The Pact became a response to aggressive foreign policies which the United States ran during the post-war years.

The collapse of Nazi Germany and the reorganization of Europe led to the opposition between the two world leaders – the USA and the USSR. The USA had nuclear weapons at its disposal, whereas the USSR could boast of the world's most powerful army which liberated Europe from fascism and set up its bases on the borders of the Western world. Each of the two countries could try to use their advantages against each other.

The trigger was pulled after Winston Churchill delivered his landmark "Iron Curtain" speech to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill frankly said during the speech that the USA could dictate its conditions to the world owing to its possession of nuclear weapons. The British diplomacy had only one prime goal: to set the leading superpowers against each other and gain the maximum profit from it. Churchill succeeded perfectly at that.

The idea of the global supremacy based on the possession of nuclear weapons became the key subject of Washington's international policies. The USA developed dozens of plans in the 1940s to use A-bombs against the USSR. The plans basically differed for the amount of A-bombs and targets. In 1946 the USA planned to drop 20-30 bombs on the Soviet Union and level 20 cities. In 1949 the United States outlined 3,261 targets.

Washington acted so according to the doctrine of massive retaliation, which is based on the unrestricted use of nuclear arms in case of a military conflict. However, as US Defense Secretary Brown said in 1977, the USA could use the tactics of preventive strike too. In addition to A-bombs Washington needed European armies to conduct ground operations against the socialist camp. On April 4, 1949, twelve countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty to defend themselves against the threat of communist aggression. In other words, they legally set up a political and military block against the USSR.

It is worthy of note that Moscow's response to the establishment of NATO was quite original. The Soviet government offered the USA, England and France, as well as its former allies, to consider an opportunity of USSR's participation in NATO. Washington found itself at a loss for it implied that NATO was absolutely useless.

In return, the USA initiated the NATO membership process for the Federative Republic of Germany, which automatically aggravated the political situation in the post-war Europe. Western Germany obtained a possibility to form a multi-million strong army outfitted with modern-day arms and equipment. The Cold War became a reality.

The remilitarization of Germany and the powerful armed alliance demanded quick measures in response. The Treaty on the establishment of United Armed Forces and United Command was signed in Warsaw on May 14, 1955. Two super-powerful groups stood up against each other.

There were no objective reasons for the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Most likely, it became history because of dogmatism and lack of foresight of the Soviet administration that could not understand internal processes taking place in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Soviet government contributed to critical processes in the socialist camp, which eventually destroyed the system of collective security of the Eastern block.