View Full Version : What would it take...

07-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Hypothetically speaking, all rhetoric aside, what would it take to get to "Global Zero" with nuclear weapons? That is, what would it take to get every country in the world to disarm? Is it even possible? Would there have to be some sort of, I dunno, global catastrophe to make countries like North Korea and Iran realize how bad of an idea it is?

I think one of the problems is the fact that nuclear power is a very viable source of power, which means nuclear materials aren't THAT difficult to come by. Would a bigger, badder, better, viable power source need to come along to displace nuclear power, thus reducing the amount of free nuclear material floating around the world?


Gilshalos Sedai
07-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Nuclear weapons will all be disarmed when they are obsolete.

07-06-2009, 02:49 PM
I would an almost 100% efficient energy source would solve a lot of problems, including nuclear arms. No energy shortage = less competition for resources = far less demand for weapons. That said, there would also have to be some fundamental changes in non-Western societies concurrent with such an energy source being discovered. They'd have to evolve to the point where they aren't pissed off at us for not being Muslim, Communist, or whatever other ultimately destructive ideology they believe in. In other words, its a pipe dream that is a long way away, if it ever happens.

07-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Nuclear weapons will all be disarmed when they are obsolete.

Yeah...whenever there is something capable of MORE massive destruction AND that all nations can afford (otherwise the poorer nations will grab nukes just to have the ability to cause massive damage...even if it is not AS massive).

Until that time, there is no way in hell that the US is going to give up its nuclear arsenal...just for one. Without that arsenal, we are barely a military superpower (due to small numbers of troops, no draft, no mandatory service requirement - not issues with training or materielle) and have absolutely zero deterrent effect on a non-nuclear China, since they can field infinitely more troops than we can.

So the US and Russia will talk nice and get rid of older model weapons that are superfluous. I.e. we can destroy the world with x number of nukes...since we currently have x+y nukes, the y is superfluous and are better used making token geopolitical gestures than for keeping for possible military deployment.

07-06-2009, 03:50 PM
Man has always wanted to enslave his fellow man. That's not gonna change no matter how technologically advanced we become. The toys evolve. Human nature doesn't.

We'll have nukes forever. There will always be another despotical ruler that has 'em, and we'll need 'em to deter the meglomaniacs that manage to get in power.

07-06-2009, 09:54 PM
It will never happen.

07-07-2009, 05:17 AM
A massive nuclear war should do it.

07-07-2009, 10:09 AM
A massive nuclear war should do it.

Yeah, that would probably do it...though we'd probably keep some around just in case there were a Round 2.

07-07-2009, 10:39 AM
No problem, I think. If the war is good enough, then no one would be left who knew how to keep the weapons functional, so after a couple of decades they would be just rather radioactive junk. And there'd be plenty of that around, anyway, so a bit more would not matter.

07-07-2009, 10:58 AM
The only way I could ever see it is if we somehow evolved into a global society, and not as individual nations. That wouldn't even work, because by that time, we will have made contact with other worldly beings and we will have to protect ourselves from them and their interests. So that being said - never.

07-07-2009, 11:33 AM
Once that Pandora's Box was opened there was no going back. There is no going back.

If the world ever came to a "Global Zero" agreement, you can rest assured it only means the nucs are well hidden and officially denied, which is even scarier that the current situation.

07-08-2009, 11:30 AM
Superman 4.....