Nuclear Disarmament

[erowe1]

I think nuclear disarmament should be a big goal in our movement. Yet I haven't encountered the topic much either here or other usual outlets for Ron Paul-ish ideas.

It seems like it would be a good thing to try and accomplish some time between now and when the federal government goes bankrupt and all those weapons go who knows where.

Unfortunately, not many of the people who would support disarmament also think that the government can spend money it doesn't have forever, and those who think the government can't spend money it doesn't have forever generally don't support disarmament. But there's a small section on the Venn diagram where both of those groups overlap. And that's us.

[FrankRep]

Our enemies will still have Nukes. That's not cool.

[Toureg89]

Our enemies will still have Nukes. That's not cool.

even if they do, it's been debated that the costs outway the benefits.

they arent very effective, they cost a lot to maintain, and many other reasons. there is a whole CATO podcast about it.

much of what any nuclear weapons would accomplish, we could do with plane old explosives.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/npu/npu_november2009.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9375

[erowe1]

Our enemies will still have Nukes. That's not cool.

1. The federal government IS our enemy.

2. If you mean by "our enemies" other governments that are enemies of the federal government (i.e. the enemies of our enemy), and if we suppose by some line of reasoning that the feds would like us to follow wherein we imagine that their enemies are also necessarily our enemies and will remain our enemies after the fed is gone (a tenuous line of reasoning to be sure, but let's assume it for the sake of argument), then although no disarmament program could be expected to eliminate all nuclear weapons from those governments, one might at least eliminate some of them, and it would surely remove the one of the greatest factors that incentivizes other governments to pursue nuclear weapons, which is their fear of the ones we have.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I would support full disarmament if we had an effective, reliable and deployable anti-ballistic missile system. I would also rather see a return to REAL civil defense to prepare in case some whackjob decided to lob a nuke at us. The problems to getting that could very well be more difficult than simply keeping a small, but effective, stockpile. I find it very ironic that the former Soviet Union took civil defense VERY seriously while The United States did not. There was something decidedly WRONG in that mentality that lead to people saying such stupid things like 'Better to be under the blast than survive to rebuild'.

[Slutter McGee]

While I think our military should be used for defensive purposes or only as response to an attack, I see no problem with intense offensive capabilities. Including nukes. Attack us and we will nuke you...as long as you are attacking us on behalf of a country and not a bunch of crazy idiots hiding in the mountains.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

Attack us and we will nuke you

And by this I presume you mean that when a government that subjugates a bunch of innocent people the way our federal government subjugates us nukes us, our federal government should reply by nuking those innocent people whom that other government subjugates.

I don't accept the premises that the government that subjugates us = us, and that the governments that subjugate foreign people = those people.

[kahless]

I think nuclear disarmament should be a big goal in our movement. Yet I haven't encountered the topic much either here or other usual outlets for Ron Paul-ish ideas.

It seems like it would be a good thing to try and accomplish some time between now and when the federal government goes bankrupt and all those weapons go who knows where.

Unfortunately, not many of the people who would support disarmament also think that the government can spend money it doesn't have forever, and those who think the government can't spend money it doesn't have forever generally don't support disarmament. But there's a small section on the Venn diagram where both of those groups overlap. And that's us.

It would be foolish to think if we get rid our nukes are enemies would do the same. Mutual destruction is the reason why we are not in a world war or have the Chinese patrolling our streets.

[erowe1]

It would be foolish to think if we get rid our nukes are [sic] enemies would do the same. Mutual destruction is the reason why we are not in a world war or have the Chinese patrolling our streets.

By "us" and "our nukes" I presume you mean "the federal government" and "its nukes."

Do you really believe that without the threat of mutual destruction, and without our federal government existing, there would be a world war? Since our federal government wouldn't be in the picture, what parties do you imagine would be in that world war? And why would it concern us on this continent? And why would the Chinese government want to expend millions of its own troops trying to subjugate 300 million well-armed free people on the other side of the globe. It seems especially unlikely that the Chinese government would try that in a scenario where we are without a unified government that subjugates all the American people here, which could itself be taken over, thus delivering into the hands of its usurpers an infrastructure by which control of those 300 million people could be facilitated, so that that Chinese government would instead itself have to subjugate those 300 million well-armed free people one at a time.

[cpike]

Banning Nukes, would be like banning guns. It's one of the dumbest things you could do, and would only lead to more violence.

[Toureg89]

Mutual destruction is the reason why we are not in a world war or have the Chinese patrolling our streets.

hahahahaha. ok...:rolleyes:

[erowe1]

Banning Nukes, would be like banning guns. It's one of the dumbest things you could do, and would only lead to more violence.

I don't think they should be banned. If you and I want to waste our time and resources overcoming all the obstacles that exist to owning our own nukes (the very least of which is the law itself), then no law should exist to stop us.

I'm not talking about banning nukes from people who have the right to bear arms. I'm talking about getting rid of the ones our enemies in the government control.

[kahless]

Amazing how the hatred of govenment has blinded people to the realities of the world that we live in and that of world history. As much as we dislike government it is a necessary evil and despite all its flaws I will take US government over a foreign migrant invasion that dictates to me what my government will be.

Without government foreign powers would be setting up shop, recruiting the ignorant and I guarantee you it will not be a Libertarian form of government. As much as people love pure Libertarian beliefs it is not possible in this world. A Libertarian form of government however is it is something we should strive for.

[Liberty Star]

Our enemies will still have Nukes. That's not cool.

Not for long if Turkey had its way:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2492025&postcount=1

[erowe1]

Amazing how the hatred of govenment has blinded people to the realities of the world that we live in and that of world history. As much as we dislike government it is a necessary evil and despite all its flaws I will take US government over a foreign migrant invasion that dictates to me what my government will be.

Without government foreign powers would be setting up shop, recruiting the ignorant and I guarantee you it will not be a Libertarian form of government. As much as people love pure Libertarian beliefs it is not possible in this world. A Libertarian form of government however is it is something we should strive for.

I wonder how all those other free countries without nukes survive without being taken over.

Don't you think that it's at least possible that these cliches you're repeating, which we've all heard countless times, are just propaganda used by the same bureaucrats, politicians, and arms manufacturers whose power and wealth are increased by our acceptance of those ideas? And that they're not really true?

And seriously, what will happen to all our nukes when the federal government goes bankrupt? Or are you of the opinion that it never will?

[LibForestPaul]

nuclear free United States?

1. We still have the strongest conventional army in the world.
2. We still are vulnerable to suitcase nukes.
3. Our conventional forces would be open to threats from nuclear nations. One tactical nuke can take out a carrier, guess which one costs more?


nuclear equipped United States?
1. We still have the strongest conventional army in the world.
2. We still are vulnerable to suitcase nukes.
3. Our conventional forces would not be open to threats from nuclear nations.
4. A small percentage increase in military spending.


Did I miss anything?
So a small savings or opening up our conventional forces to nuclear threats is your question?

Perhaps you want to rephrase that question...
Should our nuclear armaments and expenditures be re-examined. Should large multi-megaton civilian killers be reduced?

[Mini-Me]

I think this is one of those issues like abortion, intellectual property, and Constitutionalism vs. minarchy vs. anarchy, etc. that we're pretty divided on. It's a sticky subject, and I remember participating in a thread on it maybe a month ago or so...

[RM918]

I wonder how all those other free countries without nukes survive without being taken over.

I'd say it's because other, bigger countries with nukes are standing up for them or they simply aren't interesting enough to invade. Our wars are immoral and utterly senseless, why should anyone else's wars be different enough to assume no-one would attack us because it wouldn't make sense?

[youngbuck]

If we got rid of nukes, what would we use against the whales? :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[erowe1]

nuclear free United States?

1. We still have the strongest conventional army in the world.
2. We still are vulnerable to suitcase nukes.
3. Our conventional forces would be open to threats from nuclear nations. One tactical nuke can take out a carrier, guess which one costs more?


nuclear equipped United States?
1. We still have the strongest conventional army in the world.
2. We still are vulnerable to suitcase nukes.
3. Our conventional forces would not be open to threats from nuclear nations.
4. A small percentage increase in military spending.


Did I miss anything?
So a small savings or opening up our conventional forces to nuclear threats is your question?

Perhaps you want to rephrase that question...
Should our nuclear armaments and expenditures be re-examined. Should large multi-megaton civilian killers be reduced?


In all those places where you say "we" I think you mean "the federal government" (i.e. the single entity which does more harm to every one of us than any other entity in the entire world). Is that correct?

[Southron]

How about dividing up our nuclear arsenal between the states?

That would decentralize the power.

Also I believe the reason we are so adamantly against Iran having nukes is we have people wanting to attack in our government.

They will just wait till the populace gets more blood lust from an attack or other event.

[LibForestPaul]

In all those places where you say "we" I think you mean "the federal government" (i.e. the single entity which does more harm to every one of us than any other entity in the entire world). Is that correct?

Tell that to the residents of Nanking. No we is American People.

[erowe1]

Tell that to the residents of Nanking. No we is American People.

But the American people don't have nuclear weapons or the strongest conventional army in the world. Our enemies in the federal government do.

[kahless]

I wonder how all those other free countries without nukes survive without being taken over.

Don't you think that it's at least possible that these cliches you're repeating, which we've all heard countless times, are just propaganda used by the same bureaucrats, politicians, and arms manufacturers whose power and wealth are increased by our acceptance of those ideas? And that they're not really true?

I have not repeated any cliches. Show me anything in my post that is a cliche. :rolleyes:

Look at recent history. Some of these events would not have happened if there was the fear of mutual destruction. While others allowed their political system to be transformed by a foreign power.

1. Japanese invasion of China.
2. Soviet Union spread of Communism to Eastern Europe, Cuba and parts of: Central and South America, South East Asia and Africa.
3. German invasion of: Austria, Belgium, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Moravia, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sudetenland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union (Russia - parts ofy, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), and Yugoslavia.



And seriously, what will happen to all our nukes when the federal government goes bankrupt? Or are you of the opinion that it never will?

The best course of action would be to reduction in numbers for cost savings. I would expect our military to do the same or better than the Soviets after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[erowe1]

I have not repeated any cliches. Show me anything in my post that is a cliche. :rolleyes:

"It would be foolish to think if we get rid our nukes are enemies would do the same. Mutual destruction is the reason why we are not in a world war or have the Chinese patrolling our streets." is a cliche.



Look at recent history. Some of these events would not have happened if there was the fear of mutual destruction. While others allowed their political system to be transformed by a foreign power.

1. Japanese invasion of China.
2. Soviet Union spread of Communism to Eastern Europe, Cuba and parts of: Central and South America, South East Asia and Africa.
3. German invasion of: Austria, Belgium, Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Moravia, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sudetenland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union (Russia - parts ofy, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), and Yugoslavia.


Every one of those actions was the outworking of grievances between governments, all with prior histories of wrongs that were also perpetrated by governments. Not one is an example of a state conquering a stateless people.

It may be true that one government can protect its continued reign over the people it subjugates against defeat to other foreign governments by these threats of mutual destruction. But that is of little consolation to the people kept under that government's thumb whose burdens are only thereby increased and whose hopes for liberation from the regime that tyrannizes them are only thereby decreased.

[ian_co]

i think that when one calls for nuclear disarmament, much care and diplomacy must be given so that nations may work in cooperation because of a perceived benefit, rather than continue with peace ensured by fear. great problems arise when peace is brought about like this..

[Toureg89]

Amazing how the hatred of govenment has blinded people to the realities of the world that we live in and that of world history. As much as we dislike government it is a necessary evil and despite all its flaws I will take US government over a foreign migrant invasion that dictates to me what my government will be.

Without government foreign powers would be setting up shop, recruiting the ignorant and I guarantee you it will not be a Libertarian form of government. As much as people love pure Libertarian beliefs it is not possible in this world. A Libertarian form of government however is it is something we should strive for.
uh...yeah...:rolleyes:

its not a matter of "hating" government, atleast, not for me.

i just happen to perceive more negatives than positives when judging the value of nukes.

[kahless]

uh...yeah...:rolleyes:

its not a matter of "hating" government, atleast, not for me.

i just happen to perceive more negatives than positives when judging the value of nukes.

I am not happy with it but it is the world that we live in. We problably do not need as many as we have but to think we can eliminate them from this world is completely naive. There is no way you can prevent one nation from holding on to them and using it to wield power against others that do not.

[kahless]

"It would be foolish to think if we get rid our nukes are enemies would do the same. Mutual destruction is the reason why we are not in a world war or have the Chinese patrolling our streets." is a cliche.



Every one of those actions was the outworking of grievances between governments, all with prior histories of wrongs that were also perpetrated by governments. Not one is an example of a state conquering a stateless people.

It may be true that one government can protect its continued reign over the people it subjugates against defeat to other foreign governments by these threats of mutual destruction. But that is of little consolation to the people kept under that government's thumb whose burdens are only thereby increased and whose hopes for liberation from the regime that tyrannizes them are only thereby decreased.

Not a cliche but a fact of life. Some things are just not possible on this planet just look at the history of this world. You are living in a fairy tale world to believe a pure Libertarian region without government would survive. Migrant invasions supported by foreign powers would quickly setup government and subjugate you. We see it within this country already along our Mexican border with migrants claiming allegiance to Mexico and independence from the US.

Despite all our flaws we still have far more freedoms than most countries. You can bash this country all you like but the fact is things would be far worse if you were subjugated by Communists or the Chinese.

Rather I would keep a few nukes around to keep foreign powers at bay and allow us to transform the country to a more Libertarian form of government.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Erowe you can't go back to 1940. It's impossible. Nukes are here to stay, and that means that everyone should own nukes. If everyone owned nukes the world would be much more peaceful. (Now, I'm not saying each individual, in the event of Nation-States, I'm talking every Nation-State and in case of Market Anarchism, I'm talking each judicial/defense company)

An armed society is a polite society.

[StilesBC]

Further nuclear proliferation would actually be safer than trying to eliminate all of them. They'd likely still exist somewhere and even if we did eradicate them, the technology remains, so anyone who wants to build one and use it still can. I'd prefer the MAD deterrent to the uncertainty.

[Bman]

I don't like nukes at all , but at the bottom of Pandora's Jar is the hope that they never get used, again. If there is a way to get rid of nukes it will have to happen with everyone counting to three and in unison completeing the task. It won't happen one by one. Not unless everyone trusts the overseer. Not likely, ever. Superman where are you now?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't like nukes at all , but at the bottom of Pandora's Jar is the hope that they never get used, again. If there is a way to get rid of nukes it will have to happen with everyone counting to three and in unison completeing the task. It won't happen one by one. Not unless everyone trusts the overseer. Not likely, ever. Superman where are you now?

Getting rid of nukes is like trying to get rid of guns. Not going to happen and makes things worse. We need to proliferate nukes, not trying to stop proliferation.

[Bman]

Getting rid of nukes is like trying to get rid of guns. Not going to happen and makes things worse. We need to proliferate nukes, not trying to stop proliferation.

Thatis weird. How do you see that happening in a free market? Would nukes be likely without Government? I just don't see it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Thatis weird. How do you see that happening in a free market? Would nukes be likely without Government? I just don't see it.

If we had free-market anarchism prior to Nuclear development do I think nukes would have come about? Yes, only for the reason of Nuclear energy. As for the weapons itself? I don't think its a stretch at all to conceive once we found a way to harness nuclear energy that someone would devise a way to market nuclear weapons. Besides, it's a pointless endeavor to play what-if games. The point is, we have them now, so knowing that, it is far better to proliferate. If you are for non-proliferation, then you must consistently be for gun-banning also. If you are against any and all gun bans, then you must be for proliferation. The utilitarian arguements for both are the exact same.

Even if the utilitarian arguement were somehow flipped and non-proliferation and banning worked, the moral arguement of Natural Law would still override any utilitarian arguement. No one has the right to tell me what I can or cannot buy, or what I can or cannot contract to. (Do not confuse this, with existing contracts which stipulates rules and law that I have agreed to)

[tmosley]

Thatis weird. How do you see that happening in a free market? Would nukes be likely without Government? I just don't see it.

Major security firms would hold them. Their clients would likely pay riders to keep the nation safe from invasion if there was a serious threat, and they would rather pay a little bit all the time for continuous protection, and the political stability that implies It is cheaper to maintain a stockpile than it is to bootstrap a nuclear program in the face of an invasion.

Note that no nuclear armed nation (proper, the Falklands don't really count, guys) has ever been invaded.

20,000 nukes are hard to maintain. Two dozen are not. A big company like Halliburton could easily handle something like that. Add in the fact that there would be multiple warhead owning companies (not to mention eccentric individuals), so the total armament would be formidable.

[Bman]

The point is, we have them now, so knowing that, it is far better to proliferate. If you are for non-proliferation, then you must consistently be for gun-banning also. If you are against any and all gun bans, then you must be for proliferation. The utilitarian arguements for both are the exact same.


I'll concede some of your point when it comes to private means, however when it comes to Government I will always stand 100% non-proliferation.

We do have them now. That's why I know they are not going anywhere, but I can find no reason for Government proliferation of nukes at this point in time. Especially when they are robbing me to make them, and I'm talking about my own. I'm not advocating the right to make that decision for others.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Getting rid of nukes is like trying to get rid of guns. Not going to happen and makes things worse. We need to proliferate nukes, not trying to stop proliferation.

See, that's why I think we need to find some kind of real-world effective, deployable Anti-Ballistic Missile system. I also think Americans should take civil defense (fallout/overpressure shelters) more seriously. If we didn't have FEMA and the FBI fucking things up vis-a-vis the militia, we'd be far better off now. As it is, Americans as a group are not particularly prepared for bad things to happen.

[SelfTaught]

US nuclear disarmament is retarded. Enemies of the US would be much more likely to nuke us if they knew they couldn't get nuked in retaliation.

And what's this discussion about, "it's the government's nukes, not the citizens." So what, the citizens will always bear the brunt of a nuclear attack. And I doubt enemies of the US will give a damn about harming US civilians if we were to disarm.

[erowe1]

anyone who wants to build one and use it still can

Really? Kind of like the cotton gin or something?

[messana]

Even if the US doesn't get nuked directly, the atmosphere can still spread the radiation towards us.

[erowe1]

Getting rid of nukes is like trying to get rid of guns. Not going to happen and makes things worse. We need to proliferate nukes, not trying to stop proliferation.

You seem to be mixing together the issues of possession of guns by private individuals who have the right to bear arms and possession of nuclear weapons by states (i.e. criminal gangs) who came into possession of them through theft. I have trouble seeing how the same relationship between the two issues that you do.

The issue isn't banning nukes from existence, getting them out of the hands of our enemy the state (which would also dramatically reduce the number of nukes in existence).

[LibForestPaul]

You seem to be mixing together the issues of possession of guns by private individuals who have the right to bear arms and possession of nuclear weapons by states (i.e. criminal gangs) who came into possession of them through theft. I have trouble seeing how the same relationship between the two issues that you do.

The issue isn't banning nukes from existence, getting them out of the hands of our enemy the state (which would also dramatically reduce the number of nukes in existence).

By that logic, we should eliminate our entire national defense structure


possession of carriers by states (i.e. criminal gangs) who came into possession of them through theft.

possession of nuclear submarines by states (i.e. criminal gangs) who came into possession of them through theft.

possession of stealth bombers by states (i.e. criminal gangs) who came into possession of them through theft.

[erowe1]

By that logic, we should eliminate our entire national defense structure

And by "we" you mean our enemy, the state?

But yes, I'm against theft. Are you not?

[klamath]

In all those places where you say "we" I think you mean "the federal government" (i.e. the single entity which does more harm to every one of us than any other entity in the entire world). Is that correct? The people of the world have the kinds of governments that suits them or they change them. The american people endorse the kind of government we have. That is why you need to address the people not the government.

[erowe1]

The people of the world have the kinds of governments that suits them or they change them. The american people endorse the kind of government we have. That is why you need to address the people not the government.

Generally speaking are the readers of this forum the people or the government?

[klamath]

Generally speaking are the readers of this forum the people or the government? Some work for the government some don't. Even in a non democrasy the government is sanctioned by the majority of the people or they change it.

[erowe1]

Some work for the government some don't. Even in a non democrasy the government is sanctioned by the majority of the people or they change it.

I guess I don't understand your point. If the way to change government is by first compelling the people whom that government subjugates to demand that it change, then wouldn't this thread be an example of doing just that?

And doesn't your point (whatever it really is) apply to every discussion of every political issue we have here?

[klamath]

I guess I don't understand your point. If the way to change government is by first compelling the people whom that government subjugates to demand that it change, then wouldn't this thread be an example of doing just that?

And doesn't your point (whatever it really is) apply to every discussion of every political issue we have here?

I guess my comments are addressing what appears to be an asumption that the government is an unsanctioned organization operating against the will of the majority.

As far as the goal of getting rid of nukes being the goal of this movement? No.

[erowe1]

I guess my comments are addressing what appears to be an asumption that the government is an unsanctioned organization operating against the will of the majority.

Where did you get that? Nobody other than you said anything about the majority. If you mean that you object to the idea that our government exercises its powers over us without our consent, then clearly it does. Otherwise it would not need to threaten us with lethal force to do them. You will notice that organizations whose services we consent to, such as Walmart, and taxi drivers, do not need to do that.



As far as the goal of getting rid of nukes being the goal of this movement? No.

Yes it is.

The question I'm asking is, why don't we make a bigger deal out of it.

[klamath]

Where did you get that? Nobody other than you said anything about the majority. If you mean that you object to the idea that our government exercises its powers over us without our consent, then clearly it does. Otherwise it would not need to threaten us with lethal force to do them. You will notice that organizations whose services we consent to, such as Walmart, and taxi drivers, do not need to do that.



Yes it is.

The question I'm asking is, why don't we make a bigger deal out of it.

Do you have a quote of RP saying this is his goal?

[erowe1]

Do you have a quote of RP saying this is his goal?

No.

Do you have one saying it is not?

[erowe1]

..

[erowe1]

Erowe you can't go back to 1940. It's impossible. Nukes are here to stay, and that means that everyone should own nukes. If everyone owned nukes the world would be much more peaceful. (Now, I'm not saying each individual, in the event of Nation-States, I'm talking every Nation-State and in case of Market Anarchism, I'm talking each judicial/defense company)

An armed society is a polite society.

Your picture says "Rothbardian" on it. How can a Rothbardian positively advocate such powerful nation-states and positively oppose a reduction in their power?

Also, in Market Anarchism, what use would nuclear weapons be to someone who intends to follow the nonagression principle? By their nature they kill indiscriminately, including innocents, and are thus inherently aggressive, and not useful for something that is purely defensive.

Here's Rothbard on disarmament:

Strict isolationism and neutrality, then, is the first plank of a libertarian
foreign policy, in addition to recognizing the chief responsibility of the
American State for the Cold War and for its entry into all the other
conflicts of this century. Given isolation, however, what sort of arms
policy should the United States pursue? Many of the original isolationists
also advocated a policy of “arming to the teeth”; but such a program, in a
nuclear age, continues the grave risk of global holocaust, a mightily armed
State, and the enormous waste and distortions that unproductive
government spending imposes on the economy.

Even from a purely military point of view, the United States and the
Soviet Union have the power to annihilate each other many times over;
and the United States could easily preserve all of its nuclear retaliatory
power by scrapping every armament except Polaris submarines which are
invulnerable and armed with nuclear missiles with multi-targeted
warheads. Bur for the libertarian, or indeed for anyone worried about
massive nuclear destruction of human life, even disarming down to Polaris
submarines is hardly a satisfactory settlement. World peace would
continue to rest on a shaky “balance of terror,” a balance that could always
be upset by accident or by the actions of madmen in power. No; for
anyone to become secure from the nuclear menace it is vital to achieve
worldwide nuclear disarmament, a disarmament toward which the SALT
agreement of 1972 and the SALT II negotiations are only a very hesitant
beginning.

Since it is in the interest of all people, and even of all State rulers, not
to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, this mutual self- interest provides a
firm, rational basis for agreeing upon and carrying out a policy of joint and
worldwide “general and complete disarmament” of nuclear and other
modern weapons of mass destruction. Such joint disarmament has been
feasible ever since the Soviet Union accepted Western proposals to this
effect on May 10, 1955—an acceptance which only gained a total and
panicky Western abandonment of their own proposals!

The American version has long held that while we have wanted disarmament
plus inspection, the Soviets persist in wanting only disarmament
without inspection. The actual picture is very different: since May 1955,
the Soviet Union has favored any and all disarmament and unlimited
inspection of whatever has been disarmed; whereas the Americans have
advocated unlimited inspection but accompanied by little or no disarmament!
This was the burden of President Eisenhower’s spectacular but
basically dishonest “open skies” proposal, which replaced the disarmament
proposals we quickly withdrew after the Soviet acceptance of
May 1955. Even now that open skies have been essentially achieved
through American and Russian space satellites, the 1972 controversial
SALT agreement involves no actual disarmament, only limitations on
further nuclear expansion. Furthermore, since American strategic might
throughout the world rests on nuclear and air power, there is good reason
to believe in Soviet sincerity in any agreement to liquidate nuclear
missiles or offensive bombers.

Not only should there be joint disarmament of nuclear weapons, but
also of all weapons capable of being fired massively across national borders;
in particular bombers. It is precisely such weapons of mass destruction
as the missile and the bomber which can never be pinpoint-targeted to
avoid their use against innocent civilians. In addition, the total abandonment
of missiles and bombers would enforce upon every government,
especially including the American, a policy of isolation and neutrality.
Only if governments are deprived of weapons of offensive warfare will
they be forced to pursue a policy of isolation and peace. Surely, in view of
the black record of all governments, including the American, it would be
folly to leave these harbingers of mass murder and destruction in their
hands, and to trust them never to employ those monstrous weapons. If it is
illegitimate for government ever to employ such weapons, why should
they be allowed to remain, fully loaded, in their none-too-clean hands?

The contrast between the conservative and the libertarian positions on
war and American foreign policy was starkly expressed in an interchange
between William F. Buckley, Jr., and the libertarian Ronald Hamowy in
the early days of the contemporary libertarian movement. Scorning the
libertarian critique of conservative foreign policy postures, Buckley wrote:
“There is room in any society for those whose only concern is for tabletkeeping;
but le t them realize that it is only because of the conservatives’
disposition to sacrifice in order to withstand the [Soviet] enemy, that they
are able to enjoy their monasticism, and pursue their busy little seminars
on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors.” To which
Hamowy trenchantly replied:
It might appear ungrateful of me, but I must decline to thank Mr.
Buckley for saving my life. It is, further, my belief that if his viewpoint
prevails and that if he persists in his unsolicited aid the result will
almost certainly be my death (and that of tens of millions of others) in
nuclear war or my imminent imprisonment as an “un-American”….
I hold strongly to my personal liberty and it is precisely because of
this that I insist that no one has the right to force his decisions on
another. Mr. Buckley chooses to be dead rather than Red. So do I. But I
insist that all men be allowed to make that decision for themselves. A
nuclear holocaust will make it for them.

To which we might add that anyone who wishes is entitled to make the
personal decision of “better dead than Red” or “give me liberty or give me
death.” What he is not entitled to do is to make these decisions for others,
as the prowar policy of conservatism would do. What conservatives are
really saying is: “Better them dead than Red,” and “give me liberty or give
them death”—which are the battle cries not of noble heroes but of mass
murderers.

In one sense alone is Mr. Buckley correct: in the nuclear age it is more
important to worry about war and foreign policy than about demunicipalizing
garbage disposal, as important as the latter may be. But if
we do so, we come ineluctably to the reverse of the Buckleyite conclusion.
We come to the view that since modern air and missile weapons cannot be
pinpoint-targeted to avoid harming civilians, their very existence must be
condemned. And nuclear and air disarmament becomes a great and
overriding good to be pursued for its own sake, more avidly even than the
demunicipalization of garbage.
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf pp. 300-302

[klamath]

No.

Do you have one saying it is not?

No I don't but the day he does will be the day I quite supporting him for president. Philosophically yes it would be great but then so would getting rid of personal weapons because there was no longer any need for them.

[pacelli]

Nuclear Disarmament of whom?

[erowe1]

Nuclear Disarmament of whom?

Of our enemy, the state.

[Dieseler]

Of our enemy, the state.

Which state?
Are you expecting some kind of extraterrestrial intervention and not telling the rest of us?
What do you know that you are not sharing with the rest of us?
Who is this "Our" of which you speak?
Have you established some sort of super secret consortium?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your picture says "Rothbardian" on it. How can a Rothbardian positively advocate such powerful nation-states and positively oppose a reduction in their power?

Also, in Market Anarchism, what use would nuclear weapons be to someone who intends to follow the nonagression principle? By their nature they kill indiscriminately, including innocents, and are thus inherently aggressive, and not useful for something that is purely defensive.

Here's Rothbard on disarmament:

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf pp. 300-302

I didn't advocate for Nation-States. If you read what I said, I said that if we have to have Nation-States that the best thing would be proliferation. I would oppose any non-proliferation agreements for the very simple reason that the utilitarian arguement would be the exact same for banning guns. And you know me, I'm not a utilitarian at all, but you can clearly see what is happening to Iran at the moment (a country without Nukes).

Not everyone is going to follow the NAP. Nor should we expect everyone to. We have free-will and we are all borne inequal. That guarantees a number of people who will violate property rights, moreover, the whole world will not be Voluntaryist. We have to defend ourselves from outside threats also. Nuclear weapons would be much cheaper than any other alternative, beside full bore Militia. I suspect there would be quite a bit of Militia, but I also believe that people would be willing to pay for the protection that Nuclear Weapons offer.

[pacelli]

Of our enemy, the state.

Ok. In what manner can the state be disarmed of nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust the state to disarm themselves.

[erowe1]

Which state?
The one that is more likely than any other to use the weapons it possesses against us, the federal government.



Who is this "Our" of which you speak?


We are the American people, the subjects of that state, who submit to it because of the monopoly of lethal force it has to threaten us with (not the least aspect of which is its nuclear arsenal).

[erowe1]

I didn't advocate for Nation-States. If you read what I said, I said that if we have to have Nation-States that the best thing would be proliferation. I would oppose any non-proliferation agreements for the very simple reason that the utilitarian arguement would be the exact same for banning guns. And you know me, I'm not a utilitarian at all, but you can clearly see what is happening to Iran at the moment (a country without Nukes).

Not everyone is going to follow the NAP. Nor should we expect everyone to. We have free-will and we are all borne inequal. That guarantees a number of people who will violate property rights, moreover, the whole world will not be Voluntaryist. We have to defend ourselves from outside threats also. Nuclear weapons would be much cheaper than any other alternative, beside full bore Militia. I suspect there would be quite a bit of Militia, but I also believe that people would be willing to pay for the protection that Nuclear Weapons offer.

I did read what you said, and I didn't mean that you advocated nation-states over market anarchy, I meant that there being nation states you advocate them being powerful, and you oppose reducing their power (which you do). A Rothbardian would advocate all reductions of state power.

Without the state that now subjugates me being in place, it wouldn't matter if everyone else follows NAP. If I don't follow it, then I have no use for nuclear weapons. And since I couldn't ever use them, there's no way that my possessing them would provide me with any defense against others who have them. And thus, being useless to me, they would not be cheaper than any other equally useless alternative, such as voodoo or tin foil hats. On the other hand, they would make other people feel threatened by me, more likely to aggress against me out of fear, and more likely to pursue nuclear weapons for themselves.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I did read what you said, and I didn't mean that you advocated nation-states over market anarchy, I meant that there being nation states you advocate them being powerful, and you oppose taking that power away from them (which you do).

It doesn't matter if everyone else follows NAP. If I don't follow it, then I have no use for nuclear weapons. And since I couldn't ever use them, there's no way that my possessing them would provide me with any defense against others who have them. On the other hand, it would make other people feel threatened by me, more likely to aggress against me out of fear, and more likely to pursue nuclear weapons for themselves.

As I said before this isn't 1940. Nuclear weapons are not going to go away, just like after the advent of the gun, guns never went away.

[klamath]

The one that is more likely than any other to use the weapons it possesses against us, the federal government.



We are the American people, the subjects of that state, who submit to it because of the monopoly of lethal force it has to threaten us with (not the least aspect of which is its nuclear arsenal).

We submit to it because a majority of us generally support it and that is the force that holds it together, not that the citizens fear it and are hiding in a quivering mass. 250 million Americans hold the government the way it is. The 50 million that hate the United States Nation for what ever reason have to kill or convince that 250 million to live the way they feel is right in order to get the change they want be it comunism or anarchy.

[Dieseler]

The one that is more likely than any other to use the weapons it possesses against us, the federal government.



We are the American people, the subjects of that state, who submit to it because of the monopoly of lethal force it has to threaten us with (not the least aspect of which is its nuclear arsenal).

What are you all gonna do about it?

[erowe1]

As I said before this isn't 1940. Nuclear weapons are not going to go away, just like after the advent of the gun, guns never went away.

I agree.

[erowe1]

We submit to it because a majority of us generally support it and that is the force that holds it together, not that the citizens fear it and are hiding in a quivering mass. 250 million Americans hold the government the way it is. The 50 million that hate the United States Nation for what ever reason have to kill or convince that 250 million to live the way they feel is right in order to get the change they want be it comunism or anarchy.

That's a good point, because as things now stand, if 50 million Americans tried to secede, they're liable to get nuked.

[erowe1]

What are you all gonna do about it?

That's the million dollar question. Finding the right answer to it should be important to us.

[Dieseler]

That's a good point, because as things now stand, if 50 million Americans tried to secede, they're liable to get nuked.

That would suck, guess you guys better just let them keep the nukes then.

[Dieseler]

That's the million dollar question. Finding the right answer to it should be important to us.

Is "us" the same people as "our"?

[klamath]

That's a good point, because as things now stand, if 50 million Americans tried to secede, they're liable to get nuked.

Probably or if the 50 million had nukes they would try and nuke the 250 million.

[Dieseler]

Probably or if the 50 million had nukes they would try and nuke the 250 million.

:eek:

[erowe1]

Ok. In what manner can the state be disarmed of nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust the state to disarm themselves.

I wouldn't either. That's a major challenge. The less power we let them have and the less we tolerate them acting in secret the smaller that challenge would get. But it's really a challenge that exists to everything they do. I don't trust that they would stop torturing people no matter how ardently they may ever insist they have stopped. I'm not saying it would be easy. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good goal.

[Chaohinon]

The profit-motive for destructive nuclear weapons is a statist phenomenon. Take away the power to tax and raise armies, and nuclear power shifts from the hands of military-industrial thugs into those of non-violent research firms.

[Dieseler]

It's just to complicated really.
I think we should just leave this one alone.

[erowe1]

Probably or if the 50 million had nukes they would try and nuke the 250 million.

Since I don't have a nuke, and wouldn't use one if I did, that's little consolation to me.

I presume that the Kurds who got slaughtered by the mustard gas wmd's our government sold to Saddam would have thought it in their best interest for that regime not to have those weapons. And the same can be said about all the hundreds of millions of civilians in the 20th century who have been slaughtered by the governments that subjugated them, or of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were slaughtered by the federal government's military in the 19th century. Placing myself in their shoes (in which shoes I may one day be), I also would prefer that the regime which might use nukes against me not have them to begin with. And since I have greater say over the question of whether they have them right now (small though that say may be) than I will when that day comes, I might as well at least pursue the matter.

[Dieseler]

Do you hold any Hope for Change in this situation?

[erowe1]

The profit-motive for destructive nuclear weapons is a statist phenomenon. Take away the power to tax and raise armies, and nuclear power shifts from the hands of military-industrial thugs into those of non-violent research firms.

I completely agree. The only entities who could ever really have any use for nukes are states.

[Dieseler]

I completely agree. The only entities who could ever really have any use for nukes are states.

Which states?

[klamath]

Since I don't have a nuke, and wouldn't use one if I did, that's little consolation to me.

I presume that the Kurds who got slaughtered by the mustard gas wmd's our government sold to Saddam would have thought it in their best interest for that regime not to have those weapons.
I'm sure they wished that the british hadn't put them into a country that had a majority of shites and sunnis arabs as well. I am sure they wished the euorpean governments and the soviets hadn'd equiped Saddamn as well as they did.

[erowe1]

Do you hold any Hope for Change in this situation?

I don't know yet. But as with all political issues, there's a whole spectrum of how it could play out, ranging from: 1) total disarmament, to 2) varying degrees of partial disarmament, to 3) maintenance of the status quo, to 4) slightly increased armament, to 5) greatly increased armament. If it happens to be the case that the options 1 is an impossibility, that still doesn't mean that it's not worth demanding it. It may be that in the world in which we didn't make that demand, option 5 would obtain, and in the world in which we did demand it option 3 would obtain. If that happens to be the case, the payoff would be something, which is better than nothing.

[Dieseler]

I don't know yet. But as with all political issues, there's a whole spectrum of how it could play out, ranging from: 1) total disarmament, to 2) varying degrees of partial disarmament, to 3) maintenance of the status quo, to 4) slightly increased armament, to 5) greatly increased armament. If it happens to be the case that the options 1-2 are impossibilities, that still doesn't mean that it's not worth demanding them. It may be that in the world in which we didn't make those demands, option 5 would obtain, and in the world in which we did demand them option 3 would obtain. If that happens to be the case, the payoff would be something, which is better than nothing.

I think Einstein had it right.

[erowe1]

Which states?

The ones that either have nukes or want nukes.

[erowe1]

I think Einstein had it right.

I know he was against nukes, but I don't know what you mean specifically here.

[Dieseler]

The ones that either have nukes or want nukes.

Are you sure about this?

[Dieseler]

I know he was against nukes, but I don't know what you mean specifically here.

Something about sticks and rocks.
What will we do to control the proliferation of sticks and rocks?

[erowe1]

Are you sure about this?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

[klamath]

If you are going to rebell against a more powerful group pray your demise comes in a blinding white microsecond flash rather than a torture table.

[erowe1]

Something about sticks and rocks.
What will we do to control the proliferation of sticks and rocks?

Nothing. Why?

[Dieseler]

Nothing. Why?

Live by the rock... die by the rock.
Unless you prefer the stick.

[AmericaFyeah92]

If you are going to rebell against a more powerful group pray your demise comes in a blinding white microsecond flash rather than a torture table.

I'd ride one into the Pentagon, or maybe the Federal Reserve headquarters :cool:

One thing I haven't seen addressed is the fact that while nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful, they have prevented major power wars the likes of which result in massive global destruction (WW1 and WW2, for example).

The Feds in DC will never engage the Feds in China or Moscow, at least head-on, for this reason.

[Vessol]

I think changing our foreign policy completely compared to the last 50-75 years would do ten times more good then "nuclear disarmament", basically just pretty talks and nothing happening. Give little reason for people to hate us, gain a good international reputation by not being an arrogant police state at home and a empire abroad.

[steve005]

"nuclear disarmament"= lets police the world

[erowe1]

"nuclear disarmament"= lets police the world

That's a legitimate fear. I think it would have to be simple unconditional disarmament on our own government's part, not some kind of disarmament agreement.

[erowe1]

I think changing our foreign policy completely compared to the last 50-75 years would do ten times more good then "nuclear disarmament", basically just pretty talks and nothing happening. Give little reason for people to hate us, gain a good international reputation by not being an arrogant police state at home and a empire abroad.

I can't disagree with that.

Then again, I might add a condition to your first sentence:
"Changing our foreign policy completely compared to the last 50-75 years would do ten times more good then 'nuclear disarmament,' IF our possession of nukes in the future proves to be as relatively innocuous as it has been so far."

We have to consider human fallibility. And as long as we have them, there is a risk that through some mistake millions of people will get killed by one of them (or worse, considering we have 1,000s of nukes). We also have to consider that the period of time in which we have possessed our nukes has been relatively stable domestically. But this won't continue forever. At some point in the future that we can't predict, something unpredictable will happen here that we can't predict (perhaps an economic collapse), which will lead to rapid and drastic changes in the federal government, changes which may well take a form which will render those thousands of nukes much more dangerous to all of us than they have been so far.

[mello]

I remember a story that mentioned that it would only take approximately 25-50 nuclear explosions
to kick up enough earth & ash into the upper atmosphere to cause a nuclear winter that would kill 95%
of the life on this planet. One Ohio Class submarine carries 24 Trident II SLBMs. The U.S. alone
has 5,735 warheads that are considered active or operational. I wonder how much money we would
save if we voluntarily reduced our arsenal to say 250-500 warheads? Also, I would be curious to see
if this would be a positive influence on China & Russia to voluntarily reduce their stockpiles as well.

[andrewh817]

Don't you realize that people in the government know the system will collapse at some point? They knew it back when the nukes were being developed..... get where I'm going with this?

[erowe1]

Don't you realize that people in the government know the system will collapse at some point? They knew it back when the nukes were being developed..... get where I'm going with this?

Not really.

But wherever you're going, it doesn't seem to hurt the case for disarmament any.