International relations thread

[arthur]

Do you think Putin would have mounted his "special military operation" if Ukraine had retained the nuclear weapons stationed on its territory ?

Quite possibly. According to.your logic, Russia's possession of nuclear weapons would have deterred Ukraine from using theirs

 

[Phil Sayers]

From Iran's perspective.

They have a nuclear armed power to the north of them. To the south east of them are two more nuclear armed powers. To the west of them is a country recently invaded by a nuclear superpower. Their biggest regional enemy has nuclear weapons. If anyone has a case for possessing a nuclear capability in order "to deter and not to use", it is surely Iran.

If nuclear deterrence is what we are entitled to, why isn't every other country?

Yes from Iran's perspective and perhaps also from the perspective of aliens who have just turned up in orbit and are judging the World as they immediately see it rather than informed by context and history. However, from our perspective and that of most of the rest of the World, Iran having nukes would be much worse than ourselves, the US, Israel, India, Russia (in the sense that they and their predecessor have spent decades with that power and responsibility) and Pakistan (although an Islamist coup could change that) owning nuclear weapons. When it comes to something that could destroy the World yet cannot be un-invented, striving for level playing field 'fairness' is simply not a realistic way to proceed.

 

[Alistair20000]

Quite possibly. According to.your logic, Russia's possession of nuclear weapons would have deterred Ukraine from using theirs

Or Russia would have been deterred from its invasion.

 

[arthur]

Or Russia would have been deterred from its invasion.

As Galtieri was you mean?

 

[Alistair20000]

As Galtieri was you mean?

Oh dear.

Desperate stuff to support a hopeless argument.

 

[arthur]

Yes from Iran's perspective and perhaps also from the perspective of aliens who have just turned up in orbit and are judging the World as they immediately see it rather than informed by context and history. However, from our perspective and that of most of the rest of the World, Iran having nukes would be much worse than ourselves, the US, Israel, India, Russia (in the sense that they and their predecessor have spent decades with that power and responsibility) and Pakistan (although an Islamist coup could change that) owning nuclear weapons. When it comes to something that could destroy the World yet cannot be un-invented, striving for level playing field 'fairness' is simply not a realistic way to proceed.

The problem then comes with deciding what's fair, I.e. who can be allowed to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves with. Since, according to Alistair, it is a very effective way of deterring aggression there seems to be no reason why, for instance, Chile can't have a nuclear weapon.

And as for rogue states not being trusted with them, what about the US under Trump - a rogue state in waiting if ever I saw one. (This goes back to the Tisdall article).

Tom Lehrer called all this sixty years ago!

 

[arthur]

Oh dear.

Desperate stuff to support a hopeless argument.

You said having nuclear weapons would deter an invader. I gave you an example of an invader who was not deterred by his adversary having nuclear weapons. What's desperate about that?
The reason Galtieri was not deterred was because he knew we wouldn't use them. Similarly Putin would be sure that Ukraine wouldn't use them either. Ergo, nuclear weapons do not stop invasions

 

[Spanks]

You said having nuclear weapons would deter an invader. I gave you an example of an invader who was not deterred by his adversary having nuclear weapons. What's desperate about that?
The reason Galtieri was not deterred was because he knew we wouldn't use them. Similarly Putin would be sure that Ukraine wouldn't use them either. Ergo, nuclear weapons do not stop invasions

I think you'd find that if Ukraine's existence depended on it, and they possessed nuclear weapons, they'd have used them Art.

It was a silly example.

 

[Alistair20000]

I think you'd find that if Ukraine's existence depended on it, and they possessed nuclear weapons, they'd have used them Art.

It was a silly example.

This.

 

[Alistair20000]

You said having nuclear weapons would deter an invader. I gave you an example of an invader who was not deterred by his adversary having nuclear weapons. What's desperate about that?
The reason Galtieri was not deterred was because he knew we wouldn't use them. Similarly Putin would be sure that Ukraine wouldn't use them either. Ergo, nuclear weapons do not stop invasions

Dear art

Did you read Denis Healey's famous quotes including this one