So as far as keeping the new nuclear powers in check with a credible deterrent does, let us see if we can come up with any sort of number of warheads the rest of the world might need to retain. Right now, the world has about 13K warheads. In order to keep North Korea and Pakistan and maybe Iran in check, how many warheads would we need. How about 500 warheads. In other words, the world plays the disarmament game until there are 500 warheads left and then, for the while, we stop playing the disarmament game.
So let us say that Iran goes nuclear. You know, we could just sit down and *talk* with Iran and say "Ok Iran. You are a nuclear power now. You are in the club. All the other members of the club have been playing the disarmament game. Why don't you play the game too. You know that MAD applies to your nukes also." The same for North Korea. The same for Israel for that matter.
I guess I am trying to ask some fundamental questions here about what is rational. For instance, is the test ban treaty between the USA and Russia rational?
or the 1996 test ban
They are not perfect but I suggest that they are progress and that they are rational.
Rather than focus on these short term issue, why not ask questions like "What is a rational goal for 100 years from now" and then ask "If it is rational for 100 years from now, then why is it not a rational goal to pursue starting now?"
You know, at least Trump sat down and talked with the leader of North Korea. Later when he was back home, he did say something like that the USA would react with an "overwhelming response" if North Korea tried anything with their nukes, but I still respect that he talked with North Korea
Again, why not play the disarmament game until the world has about 500 warheads left and then stop playing the game for a while. Is that not a better world than the current situation?
So let us say that Iran goes nuclear. You know, we could just sit down and *talk* with Iran and say "Ok Iran. You are a nuclear power now. You are in the club. All the other members of the club have been playing the disarmament game. Why don't you play the game too. You know that MAD applies to your nukes also." The same for North Korea. The same for Israel for that matter.
I guess I am trying to ask some fundamental questions here about what is rational. For instance, is the test ban treaty between the USA and Russia rational?
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
or the 1996 test ban
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They are not perfect but I suggest that they are progress and that they are rational.
Rather than focus on these short term issue, why not ask questions like "What is a rational goal for 100 years from now" and then ask "If it is rational for 100 years from now, then why is it not a rational goal to pursue starting now?"
You know, at least Trump sat down and talked with the leader of North Korea. Later when he was back home, he did say something like that the USA would react with an "overwhelming response" if North Korea tried anything with their nukes, but I still respect that he talked with North Korea
Again, why not play the disarmament game until the world has about 500 warheads left and then stop playing the game for a while. Is that not a better world than the current situation?