This is sensible and thus it won't happen
It’s China. Literally nothing they do can be sensible to dumbfuck Americans, it goes against their nationalistic exceptionalism and false propaganda.
The French will never agree.
Their stance has always been, if France is threatened we will use every weapon in our arsenal.
They do not have end the world stocks of nukes like the US or Russia so their attitude is, "Fuck with us and we will end you."
They do not have end the world stocks
I think you overestimate how many nukes it would take to cause the end of the world. Unless you mean "every piece of land is a radioactive wasteland" end of the world.
Radioactive contamination is basically a non concern. Potential massive climatic effects and logistics collapse on the other hand, are.
Yes, France has enough nukes to cause a nuclear winter several times over. And yes, while radioactivity levels drop rapidly, I meant it in the context of "every single piece of land is nuked and turned into a radioactive wasteland where you wouldnt want to be. Which is a concern because who wants to glow in the dark, right?".
Not sure France has enough nukes to literally hit every square inch of the planet in one go.
If just India and Pakistan were to go to nuclear war with each other, in their small localized region of the world, 27 million people would die from the carnage. The resulting nuclear Autumn would be enough to change agriculture and starve 250 million people worldwide.
Kurzgesagt Video with timestamp: https://youtu.be/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380
Seems like incredibly low totals.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/LrIRuqr_Ozg?si=Nn6YuO0llyB-B6If&t=380
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's says an error about watch lists for me. Try yewtu.be instead
How so, that is exactly inline with "no first use".
How could "we will use every weapon in our arsenal" possibly be interpreted to mean "no first use"?
Nuclear weapons would not just be used to respond to nuclear threats, if that's your assumption.
I'm all for countries vowing not to use nuclear weapons first, but what is the point of a treaty? If a country does use nuclear weapons first, I think other countries are going to be less concerned about breaking the treaty and more concerned about WW3 and Armageddon. And given that both the US and Russia have shown scant regard for treaties in recent years with major changes to policy, surely the treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
It takes a lot of people to launch a nuke. While missile operators are trained to act quickly, they are also drilled hard on adherence to policy. A 94% on the test for that policy is a failing grade.
And while I think you're very right to not trust the US or Russia to adhere to treaties, if said treaty requires that training policies and doctrine reflect the no first strike stance, that would mean a whole lot of people would have to be willing to violate that treaty in order to launch first. Heck, there's been incidents during the Cold War where a single person's hesitancy to follow approved launch policy has averted total nuclear war.
I think a treaty and accompanying training and doctrine could create sufficient barriers to make a nuclear first strike far less likely, though, of course, not impossible. But that alone seems like a worthwhile thing to pursue.
That is obviously fake news the libs and MAGAs told me Chyyyyna bad!
While I don't think it bears much on how reasonable it is to suggest nuclear powers agree to never strike first, China's arsenal is uniquely well designed for this kind of strategy. They employ zero static sites, unlike the US and Russia, relying on mobile launchers, subs and bombers. This makes them tactically poised for a retaliatory strike as they don't have as much of the risk of losing their launch sites in a first strike. The US doctrine of preliminary strike in the event a nuclear attack seems likely is designed to protect their ability to launch at all.
While this kind of treaty would be slightly "advantageous" to China, it's only because they set up their nuclear arsenal with this far more reasonable and less aggressive strategy in mind from the get go while Russia and the US would have to adapt and convert their arsenal.
Russia also maintains a no first strike policy, unless that changed since I last got stuck in a rabbit hole about nuclear policy. The US is the only major country in the world to maintain a first strike policy with nuclear weapons that I know of.
Kind of? They call it that sometimes but it doesn't look like a true no first use policy in the same vein as China's and India's. Putin also threatens nuclear weapons if NATO troops were to get involved in Ukraine, and openly questions the policy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/09/europe/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-intl/index.html
I'm not sure any nuclear country would stick to these policies if they truly faced an existential threat, whether that threat was nuclear or not. Russia's policy has a carve out for any existential threat including conventional weapons. US and Russian policies are pretty close, basically okay to use for any existential threat. Doesn't hurt to try and negotiate more no first use policies and reinforce the norm though.
Looks like the UK, France, and Pakistan also lack no first use policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
As far as I can tell the article is correct, China and India are the only current nuclear powers with true no first use policies. If that's incorrect happy to learn more though. Israel not on here cause officially not a nuclear power, but hey we weren't born yesterday.
Wow great info, thanks so much for doing all that legwork! It makes sense that Putin would put less stock into the policy than did his predecessors, because while the leaked Soviet archives show the USSR was genuinely terrified of nuclear war and mostly built up in response to US expansion of nuclear programs, I feel like Putin sees it more as a tool for intimidation.
Hey, yanno, gonna be real with you, I'm not that familiar with the Russian policy, I assumed they didn't have a no first strike policy because they were specifically mentioned in this article and it states that only China and India have formal no first strike policies.
because they set up their nuclear arsenal with this far more reasonable and less aggressive strategy
Yes.
it’s only because they set up their nuclear arsenal with this far more reasonable and less aggressive strategy
I'm sure US and Russia would do the same if not for starting earlier. There are advantages to catching up too.
Folks, very smart people are saying it. I talk to CEOs, generals, every day they tell me. They tell me China is a problem, they say "we've got a problem with China. We've gotta do something about China." Everybody's saying it. That's what they tell me.
Should have thrown in a "I'm a very stable genius" somewhere.
I fail to see the point of such a treaty. This planet isn't surviving a nuclear war long enough to hold anyone accountable over it anyway.
I can tell if China is worried about current Russia or a future US under Trump.
This is directed to the US, UK, France, and Pakistan.
China and india already have no-first-use policies. Russia inherited one from the USSR, which was dissolved when the west coup'd them and immiserated their people. Russia's lack of a no-first-use policy is directed at the guys who represent an existential threat to them.
"Russia makes constant nuclear threats and doesn't have a no first use policy, but it's totally entirely the fault and moral obligation of the us. Totes definitely."
lol
Russia makes far fewer nuclear threats than the US who flies stealth bombers right up to the border of North Korea every year and is developing new ICBMs.
But yes Russia's nuclear policy, including their revocation of no-first-use in the 90s is in response to the US's actions.
The current situation is especially ironic because Yeltsin, the guy who executed the coup and burned parliament, and removed the No-First-Use policy, and Putin, were both picked by the US.
This would be a mixed bag because it could open the door on more conventional wars since it would left the threat of MAD.
I think this applies more to our typical bullying. Against another nuclear state, this treaty is meaningless.
this is largely symbolic, it doesnt change anything
Agreements? Concentions? Those never get broken.
Geneva anyone?
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc