There is increasing unease in Washington about China’s nuclear ambitions. The Pentagon says Beijing is on track to double the number of its nuclear warheads by the decade’s end, to 1,000 from 500 — a development that senior U.S. officials have publicly called “unprecedented” and “breathtaking.” China has drastically expanded its nuclear testing facility and continued work on three new missile fields in the country’s north, where more than 300 intercontinental ballistic missile silos have recently been constructed.
China’s transformation from a small nuclear power into an exponentially larger one is a historic shift, upending the delicate two-peer balance of the world’s nuclear weapons for the entirety of the atomic age. The Russian and American arsenals — their growth, reduction and containment — have defined this era; maintaining an uneasy peace between the two countries hinged on open communication channels, agreement on nuclear norms and diplomacy.
In February, in a rare offer for nuclear diplomacy, China openly invited the United States and other nuclear powers to negotiate a treaty in which all sides would pledge never to use nuclear weapons first against one another. “The policy is highly stable, consistent and predictable,” said Sun Xiaobo, director general of the Chinese foreign ministry’s Department of Arms Control, in Geneva on Feb. 26. “It is, in itself, an important contribution to the international disarmament process.”
The invitation came…
Read more@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
Considering the potential for a three-way arms race, how should countries balance the need for national security with the risks of escalating nuclear weapon development?
@9LKBY8J2wks2W
The threat of total nuclear war is too dangerous and affects the entire planet not just the parties primarily involved.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
Do you believe that a country expanding its nuclear weapons poses a threat to global peace, or is it a form of self-defense?
@9LKD4GG2wks2W
I think that opening that threat up to people is not a good idea. Whether people realize it or not, there are crazy people out there and people that do bad things. This will only increase the change of someone or a group of people to use these types of weapons, it puts the global at risk.
@9LKC6552wks2W
I think that it could harm the whole world peace we got goin on
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
What are your thoughts on the concept of 'no first use' policies for nuclear weapons? Do you think they are enough to prevent nuclear war?
@9LKCZFYRepublican2wks2W
I don't have a opinion on this right know
@9LKBZT42wks2W
We need this rules, the moment a nuclear attack is launched, the end of the world will begin.
@SereneHareGreen2wks2W
The use of the relatively tiny atomic bombs to end WWII can be interpreted with equal logic as a war crime or a practical means of ending a war that would otherwise linger on indefinitely at the expense of both sides of the conflict.
I'm sure the latter argument fails to resonate in Japan and I would like to see an international ban on any military action that deliberately targets innocent civilians. That we manufacture and store a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying our species is pathological.
What we should be seeking is an absolute eradication of every nuclear weapon in existence- but that would require the collective sanity of our species so cannot possibly happen.
Still, we have to try.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
How do you feel about the idea of one country significantly increasing its nuclear arsenal in today’s world?
@9LKF3XM2wks2W
it is scary if they target the U.S we have no choice but to die
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@VenisonEliLibertarian2wks2W
So what *is* the US stance, then?
Something like this?
1) We are deeply, deeply concerned that China is trying to close the 10-1 nuclear weapon/warhead gap with us.
2) But, we don't want to commit to a "no first-use" policy, i.e., we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first - bomb a country with nukes to achieve some political-military objective.
Unlike Russia, China's economy is built on trade relations with the West, especially the US, so China has a built-in economic incentive not to strike the US with a nuclear weapon. Indeed, it's counterproductive for the US to engage in a trade war with China: the greater the bond, the less likely China would attack the US. Rather than all the sabre rattling from the usual suspects, the Biden Administration and its successor should be focused on mending the trade rift and strengthening the trade ties with China.
Russia will not be on the list who signed the treaty. It is already few years since Putin declared that Russia can use the nuclear weapons in dire situation even against non-nuclear nations.
But even if Putin signs the treaty can he be trusted? He guaranteed the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine once already.
@LovesickSwiftForward2wks2W
The problem with all such treaties is that there is no enforcement mechanism beyond that which exists already, even without a treaty, ie nuclear retaliation.
The US might feel bound, but would anyone trust any CCP promise?
In fact, does such a treaty have any real value, or just create an asymmetric obligation on us?
@MantisDennyRepublican2wks2W
In the 90’s, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet which they inherited from the USSR. In 1994 they were persuaded by the West under the Budapest Memorandum to exchange those nukes for aid & security guarantees. FFWD to 2022, Ukraine paid the price for abandoning their deterrent. They pay it every day since then. Everyone around the world made the nukes=security connection based what happened and continues to happen in Ukraine.
China clearly sees the value of multiplying their arsenal since it’s obvious the West will tiptoe around nuclear armed nations (Russia being the obvious example).
China appears to have left its policy of minimum deterrence behind. If the Biden administration is serious about arms control, it’s time to look for common ground with Beijing to build new agreements for a safer future.
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
