Klaus Fuchs:

nacho libre

I'm beginning to wonder was he right even if he was lying as to why he spied on behalf of the russians.

I know it will seem like a paradox to many but a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons actually seems far safer to me than a world without nuclear weapons. I would go so far as to say a middle east without any nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous.
I can imagine a lot of people will view this as a preposterous statement. fair enough let the ridicule begin. i'm here to listen, be disabused of my silly notions, and learn.

Chakar

Well as you might have heard of theories such as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and NUTS (Nuclear Utilization Target Destruction).

Basically MAD is a theory that if two countries have a nuclear weapon the other one knows that if they use nuclear weapons on that country then that country will retaliate with its own weapons and vice versa ensuring the destruction of both countries.So on that basis the countries refrain from using them.

NUTS is basically a theory employed by George W. Bush which is using a anti ballistic defence to shoot down nuclear weapons aimed at USA.Britain was supposely included in the defence system.

So its like theres a mutual understanding but I wonder if you've read or seen the book and film The Sum Of All Fears.

It talks about the fraility of the human condition in that fear and anger rule people's decisions in times of crisis and wars.This ensures that the decision making ability of leaders are impaired.

Also if there was ever to be a nuclear war it would produce enough nuclear fallout to castastrophically destroy the world's ability to sustain human life.

If you want to learn about the subject of nuclear theories and politics there are layman knowledge available on wikipedia.Also you should at least explain why you think that the world is safer with nuclear weapons.

aidan24326

nacho libre wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder was he right even if he was lying as to why he spied on behalf of the russians.

I know it will seem like a paradox to many but a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons actually seems far safer to me than a world without nuclear weapons. I would go so far as to say a middle east without any nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous.
I can imagine a lot of people will view this as a preposterous statement. fair enough let the ridicule begin. i'm here to listen, be disabused of my silly notions, and learn.

How could a world 'armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons' be safe? The USA and Russia between them hold enough nuclear bombs to cause a near-global catastrophe if a significant number were deployed. The only reason it's currently safe is that both countries leaders have, after much posturing, been sane enough to realise that an all-out nuclear war is pointless due to what's termed 'mutually assured destruction' (or MAD). i.e nobody wins as both countries are left devastated in the aftermath.

The 'safety' is gained from both sides being equally capable of destroying the other, creating a sort of stalemate, but is still dependent on the future rationality and sanity of those with their finger close to the button. But nuclear weapons are only an advantage to overall safety when this situation occurs i.e all players in the game are nuclear-armed. But the world would still be a far safer place if nobody had them.

Thankfully the US and Russia have somewhat realised the fallacy of their cold-war strategy of building massive 20-50MT bombs which would wipe out a major city, and are now planning to downscale their designs to more 'strategic' smaller-scale weapons. Bombs of the 20MT+ magnitude are extreme overkill (about 1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima).

Not sure what you mean by 'a middle east with no nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous'. At the moment the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons is Israel. (they don't openly admit to having them but it's no big secret at this stage that they do). This causes an imbalance in the region by putting Israel at a major military advantage over their neighbours. It is particularly dangerous for any country in this volatile region to have nuclear weapons. While the world is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads it is inevitable that someday somewhere some country is going to use them again.

Regardless of Klaus Fuchs the Russians would have got that technology anyway.

Mick86

nacho libre wrote:

I know it will seem like a paradox to many but a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons actually seems far safer to me than a world without nuclear weapons. I would go so far as to say a middle east without any nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous.
I can imagine a lot of people will view this as a preposterous statement. fair enough let the ridicule begin. i'm here to listen, be disabused of my silly notions, and learn.

The MAD theory only works when both sides realise that if they launch then the other side can get it's nuclear weapon's off before yours land. That was fine when The US had it's strategic nukes on one side of the world and the Russians theirs on the other. The Middle East is much smaller. Consequently the temptation for a pre-emptive strike is much greater if one side thinks it can land it's weapons on target before the other realises it is under attack. Furthermore suppose that Iran armed itself with tactical nuclear weapons and Hezbollah began launching missiles at Israel again. Every Katyusha would then be a potential nuclear missile. Inevitably someone will blink first.

Victor

Mick86 wrote:

Every Katyusha would then be a potential nuclear missile.

Indeed scary. Hence the Nuclear Triad to support MAD.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1012-02.htm
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris

Inevitably someone will blink first.

And I suppose that is part of the west's reason for testing Iran, is Iran responsible enough to posess nuclear weapons? To date, every country (except the initial uses in 1945) that has had nuclear weapons has been mature enough not to use them.

Chakar

Victor wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1012-02.htm
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris

Very interesting stories.I had a good read of them.Cheers Victor.