Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons are banned by several international treaties, though not all governments are party to them. Many countries possess some form of WMDs, openly and secretly.

Would you say states have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction? If so, what about non-state entities? Does it depend on the intentions, or any extant international obligations? If not, what would be the best way to go about global disarmament of such weapons?

Please try to avoid overtly political diatribes that could spark an unwanted argument. We would not want this thread to be nuked, now would we?

---

Overview of the current status of weapons of mass destruction:

- 17,000 nuclear weapons are believed to be in existence, 4,300 of which are operational.

- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) designates five countries as nuclear weapons states; they are obliged to share peaceful nuclear technology and allowed to maintain nuclear weapons with the ultimate purpose of eliminating them, and prohibits all other parties their possession. These are the victors of the second world war: Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The latter is responsible for the first and hitherto only use of nuclear weapons.

- Only three other countries openly possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Only the latter was party to the NPT. Israel does not confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons, but everyone knows it does.

- The US shares some nuclear weapons with its NATO allies; such allotments are extant in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. This may or may not be a violation of NPT, as the US claims it still controls these weapons, and that it is still committed to not allowing them to be deployed outside the purview allowed by NPT.

- Dozens of countries maintain stockpiles of other types of weapons of mass destruction, and have deployed them at various times, often at the cost of great civilian casualties. Most recently, the Syrian government was allegedly responsible for chemical attacks that killed thousands of civilians, and has since handed over what it claims is the last of its stockpile to be destroyed, and acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

- Resources on the contemporary dangers of weapons of mass destruction:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53599/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_04/wkhp98

https://www.hampshire.edu/pawss/weapons-of-mass-destruction

edited 31st Jul '14 4:55:23 AM by Tyler

Did you know that 90% of household dust is made from dead human skin? That's what you are to me.

In this day and age, I see no need for such weapons for they can be misused and some of their effects are uncontrollable in some cases.

Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to break

I think some should be retained, but only for global crises. IE, Imminent asteroid impact, or such things.

I'm baaaaaaack

Some (very) basic information for everyone on the who's who of nuclear weapons.

The P5: US, UK, China, France, Russia, these are the states allowed nuclear weapons under the nuclear weapons convention.

India and Pakistan: The scary boys who might start a nuclear war with each other, they've both got sturdy enough program's but the Pakistani program lacks safeguards.

North Korea: That angry kid who shouldn't have them. North Korea claims to have withdraw from the nuclear treaty but it's not actually allowed to. As for its delivery methods, well they leave a lot to be desired.

Israel: The one who officially "May or may not" have nuclear weapons, I don't know of any estimates of their stockpile though.

The NATO lot: The non-UK-France NATO members have US nuclear weapons stationed in their territory, and in the event of war control may be turned over to them.

The former USSR countries: After the fall of the USSR serval newly independent countries ended up with nuclear weapons, they were convinced to give them up, in the case of Ukraine with the promise of all involved guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

There are also some fairly good pages on the matter elsewhere on TV Tropes.

Keep Rolling On

Also, South Africa had developed nuclear weapons (allegedly in cooperation with Israel), but dismantled them and signed the NPT in coincidence with the fall of Apartheid. Should I put all this information in the OP?

Did you know that 90% of household dust is made from dead human skin? That's what you are to me.

Also, a lot of non-nuke nations (like Germany) could develop them pretty fast if they needed to.

"You can reply to this Message!"

Nuclear weapons are here to stay and they do have value as a deterrent anyway, but if any non-rational actors get their hands of them it isn't going to end well.

There is no valid reason for anyone to possess chemical or biological weapons anymore, apart from small samples in order to create countermeasures. But destroying them is a huge pain in the ass, even if most of the world is trying to.

Yeah, almost every country in the First World (and quite a few others) has breakout capacity and could have nuclear weapons in theory, if they were willing to deal with the monetary and political costs.

edited 30th Jul '14 3:12:29 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Well over here its mostly the latter. The Left Party and the Greens would murder the government in their seats if they just hypothetically discussed this ^^

"You can reply to this Message!"

Does the CDU/FDP bloc listen to anyone else, though? If Merkel decided to turn the screwdriver (to use the cliche), would she face serious opposition from anyone who wasn't already in Opposition?

There is no FDP block anymore. They got kicked out of Parliament during the last election. We atm have a great Coalition of CDU/SPD which enough procentuals that they probably could get it through.

Lefts and Greens would still make an unholy ruckuss

"You can reply to this Message!"

In general, yes. Just not to use them until provoked in a sufficiently extreme manner.

However, there is also the matter of security. Being careless enough with WMDs that terrorists might be able to get hold of some kinda waives any right to build and deploy them in the first place.

The need for them is to maintain peace, by making total war too horrifying to ever pursue again. Without them, there'd be a lot more room for conflicts to escalate like they did back in the early 20th century. I don't think people and cultures have matured enough yet not to do those kinds of things again if there weren't a nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over them.

edited 2nd Aug '14 11:15:24 AM by Meklar

Join my forum game!

How would the bulk of the German electorate respond to a hypothetical nuclear program? Would it hurt Merkel and her party at that ballot box.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

A lot of the German population seem to be distrustful of nuclear power, let alone nuclear weapons.

I'm baaaaaaack

Depends on the situation, I think. Just to have them? That would hurt them.

"You can reply to this Message!"