Nuclear disarmament during the 90’s

[Bergslagstroll]

Would nuclear disarmament have been possible during the 90's after the cold war. That US for example had offered to reduce its nuclear arsenal to for example 100 nukes so long as all other nuclear power did the same. There US also had helped Russia in reducing its stockpile. That 100 nukes would be more than enough deterrent and the threat to humanity would have been drastically reduced.

 

[concernedpuma]

Would nuclear disarmament have been possible during the 90's after the cold war. That US for example had offered to reduce its nuclear arsenal to for example 100 nukes so long as all other nuclear power did the same. There US also had helped Russia in reducing its stockpile. That 100 nukes would be more than enough deterrent and the threat to humanity would have been drastically reduced.

I have always thought we missed a great chance for global realignment and peace opportunities back then. I'm not sure complete denuclearization would have been possible, since we still had the Chinese to consider.
Regards,
CP

 

[BahamaBob]

I don't think Nuclear disarmament is possible. First, too many nations have nukes. You will never get all of them to agree on terms. Second, there is no way to verify if nations are abiding by the terms of disarmament. Third, some of these nations like China, Russia, North Korea have no honor. They are well know for breaking the terms of agreements. Fourth, probably all the nuclear nations have clandestine programs to enhance their capabilities. None of them will give those up without absolute, verifiable and ongoing evidence that the other nations are complying. That my friends is impossible.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I don't think Nuclear disarmament is possible. First, too many nations have nukes. You will never get all of them to agree on terms. Second, there is no way to verify if nations are abiding by the terms of disarmament. Third, some of these nations like China, Russia, North Korea have no honor. They are well know for breaking the terms of agreements. Fourth, probably all the nuclear nations have clandestine programs to enhance their capabilities. None of them will give those up without absolute, verifiable and ongoing evidence that the other nations are complying. That my friends is impossible.

Even with those challenges you need to try. That with countries like China, Russia, North Korea you also have the risk of civil war and other forms of civil turmoil that can lead to that nuclear arms ends up in the hands of war lords and terrorists.

That for example hundred nukes instead of thousands nuke like Russia now have would still be more than enough deterrent. So with the right stick and carrots and also versification it might have been possible at least during the 90's to set a maximum for nukes.

 

[HonestJoe]

Would nuclear disarmament have been possible during the 90's after the cold war. That US for example had offered to reduce its nuclear arsenal to for example 100 nukes so long as all other nuclear power did the same. There US also had helped Russia in reducing its stockpile. That 100 nukes would be more than enough deterrent and the threat to humanity would have been drastically reduced.

It was (and remains) possible but it would require widespread (even more so today) public pressure around the world for enough politicians to really want to make it happen. At the moment, there are far too many other socio-political issues which are of much more concern to people (legitimately or not) which would get in the way of any world-wide disarmament.

It's probably becoming less and less likely given that so many more people have influence on the decision making (which is a good thing in general terms) so there would need to be agreement across a much wider range of people. The only positive is that actual use of nuclear weapons seems much less likely than it was at the height of the cold war (however much the trolls will jump in this to condemn their socio-political enemies).

 

[BahamaBob]

Even with those challenges you need to try. That with countries like China, Russia, North Korea you also have the risk of civil war and other forms of civil turmoil that can lead to that nuclear arms ends up in the hands of war lords and terrorists.

That for example hundred nukes instead of thousands nuke like Russia now have would still be more than enough deterrent. So with the right stick and carrots and also versification it might have been possible at least during the 90's to set a maximum for nukes.

You need to deal with reality. This technology has been around for nearly a hundred years. Even backward countries like NK and Iran have the capability now. You also have counties like Pakistan who are willing to share the technology with other Muslim countries. The only option the US has is to have more and better nukes. Letting every other country know that nuking us would be suicide.