Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the he-might-be-a-little-nuts-too dept.

North Korea's defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities, dramatised by last weekend's powerful underground test and a recent long-range ballistic missile launch over Japan, has been almost universally condemned as posing a grave, unilateral threat to international peace and security.

The growing North Korean menace also reflects the chronic failure of multilateral counter-proliferation efforts and, in particular, the long standing refusal of acknowledged nuclear-armed states such as the US and Britain to honour a legal commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals.

In other words, the past and present leaders of the US, Russia, China, France and the UK, whose governments signed but have not fulfilled the terms of the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), have to some degree brought the North Korea crisis on themselves. Kim Jong-un's recklessness and bad faith is a product of their own.

The NPT, signed by 191 countries, is probably the most successful arms control treaty ever. When conceived in 1968, at the height of the cold war, the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons was considered a real possibility. Since its inception and prior to North Korea, only India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have joined the nuclear "club" in almost half a century.

To work fully, the NPT relies on keeping a crucial bargain: non-nuclear-armed states agree never to acquire the weapons, while nuclear-armed states agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and pursue nuclear disarmament with the ultimate aim of eliminating them. This, in effect, was the guarantee offered to vulnerable, insecure outlier states such as North Korea. The guarantee was a dud, however, and the bargain has never been truly honoured.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/05/nuclear-armed-nations-brought-the-north-korea-crisis-on-themselves


[Ed Note: Since this story was submitted there has been at least one additional ballistic missile test by North Korea.]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:19AM (12 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:19AM (#568887) Journal

    Been 72 years since the one time nuclear bombs were used in war. The entire 45 year stretch of the Cold War stayed cold, both sides understanding that nuclear weapons could not be used. There were some close calls, but no one ever crossed that line. There were individuals who would have done it, but thanks to prudent dissipation of the authority to do so among several people, giving each person veto power, it never happened. There was also always the possibility that the losing side could launch the nukes, same as a kid losing at a game of checkers might flip the board over. That the Soviet Union didn't launch nuclear weapons in its last years when it was obvious that their empire was failing, I regard as one of humanity's shining moments.

    I wonder how long it can last. 100 years? 1000 years? Longer? I fear that we're too stupid not to ever do it again, and the best to hope for is just one more being used, which will show and remind everyone for millenia to never ever do that again. There are plenty of fools in the world who would use nuclear weapons in war if only they could. Insanity is another avenue by which it could happen. I wonder how crazy N. Korea really is? Can Kim launch the nukes without assent from anyone else? Is his authority that extreme? Hope not.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:43AM (4 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:43AM (#568892)

    Accident is probably more likely than intentional strike. The world has come quite close to accidental "attack" before, but nobody has ordered a first strike that we know of.

    The thing about dictators is that their lives are a constant struggle for personal survival. As dictator, someone is always plotting against you. The primary skill of the dictator is self-preservation instinct.

    And self-preservation instinct prevents someone, even someone who outwardly appears crazy, from launching a strike that would result in the end of their reign (or their likely death). I am confident that this effect will be a very good way of stopping small dictatorships ruled by crazies from nuking everyone else*.

    For large countries such as the US and the USSR, mutually assured destruction has a proven track record. Even if it is a question of the attitude of the military command, the people in power still tend to want to preserve it. And even when you are on equal footing with your enemy like this, the personal risk of nuclear war is too great.

    Finally you have a large nuclear country and a small non-nuclear country. What is stopping the big guy from nuking the little guy? Not much, compared to the other two scenarios. It just comes down to not being worth the PR cost when you could achieve your aims by conventional might alone. So, I suppose I could see this happening.

    *Note: this works because they believe that a retaliatory strike is likely.

    • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:45AM

      by Virindi (3484) on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:45AM (#568894)

      Note to nitpickers: when I say "nobody has ordered a first strike" obviously I am not talking about the US attacking Japan in WWII. I am talking in that sentence about one nuclear country attacking another nuclear country.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Virindi on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:21AM (2 children)

      by Virindi (3484) on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:21AM (#569202)

      I would like to explicitly add the conclusion to this reasoning:

      1) More countries having nuclear weapons decreases the chance of the intentional use in warfare. As examined above no nuclear country wants to use them against another.

      BUT also,

      2) More countries having nuclear weapons increases the chance of an accidental launch.

      So really I think the most critical thing for the human race going forward, is not the scaling back of nuclear arsenals. Rather, it is the deployment of communications systems, redundancy, etc designed to prevent an accident, and reduce the chance of an accident turning into a full scale nuclear war that neither side wanted.

  • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:23AM (2 children)

    by anubi (2828) on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:23AM (#568898) Journal

    I believe his authority *is* that extreme.

    While his technology is not... ( at least, yet ).

    I do not believe *anybody* under Kim's authority has questioned him and lived to tell about it.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:33PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 16 2017, @07:33PM (#569087) Journal

      Nobody would question him. That's not how its done in countries like that.
      He would just get a bullet to the brain or a grenade under the car seat.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:48PM (#569147)

        Bicycle seat, you mean.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:22PM (3 children)

    by JNCF (4317) on Saturday September 16 2017, @02:22PM (#568964) Journal

    There were individuals who would have done it, but thanks to prudent dissipation of the authority to do so among several people, giving each person veto power, it never happened.

    Who has veto power over a US President ordering a nuclear strike? Radio Lab couldn't find anybody. [radiolab.org] There are other people in the chain of command, but they don't have the authority to veto.