tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post1492442008360448496..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty violationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90768321095808295102009-07-14T19:13:44.587+02:002009-07-14T19:13:44.587+02:00"International law is just about whatever a c..."International law is just about whatever a country makes of it."<br /><br />It's much less about what a country does about it.<br />International Law is a line that a state crosses at its own risk. Other powers will either sanction it or remember the violation - and adjust their own behaviour.<br /><br /><br />The purpose of this post was in part to show that the NPT is not just a club to wield at nuclear power wannabes - it's also a document that includes a negotiated agreement. All powers that signed it are legitimized to demand that the others adhere to the treaty - something that was much ignored in many discussions about the NNPT.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91046321795653706702009-07-14T19:09:51.659+02:002009-07-14T19:09:51.659+02:00I wasn't sure about the UK's arsenal. The ...I wasn't sure about the UK's arsenal. The British Trident 2 D5 were IIRC always limited to a max. of eight warheads, even though 12 is technically possible. That's where the 128 came from.<br /><br />"So with one ship at sea at any time plus one ship being prepared to sail, the total number of required warheads is 96. Well below "minimal deterrent"."<br /><br />They need three boats for a full rotation (including long refuels and other major maintenance) and a fourth just in case of an accident.<br /><br />The necessary warhead count depends a lot on how many warheads are used per missile, how many missiles carried per boat and on how often they load and unload the missiles.<br /><br />I would consider 20-40 missiles with 1x150 kt each as enough deterrence if the provisions for their survivability are good and the cumulative reliability good as well.<br />An aggressor that would be ready to sacrifice ten major cities would likely not be deterred by more nukes as well.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-41638743965486855862009-07-14T18:10:00.203+02:002009-07-14T18:10:00.203+02:00"international law" is more of a jus int...<i>"international law"</i> is more of a <i>jus inter gentes</i> than a codified set of laws.<br /><br />International law is just about whatever a country makes of it.<br /><br />"<i>There was no perception that by simply getting out of the treaty countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea could legally and legitimately produce nukes.</i>" proves the NPT is just words on paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-86821952824246183412009-07-14T17:40:26.590+02:002009-07-14T17:40:26.590+02:00Sven,
I think you might have your figures on the...Sven, <br /><br />I think you might have your figures on the UK's nuclear stockpile (and therefore your conclusions) a bit wrong:<br /><br />i) "British are significantly above a "minimal deterrence" level"<br /><br />So, what is "minimal deterrence"? Earlier, you gave China as an example, saying that "It was and is already at a minimum deterrence level (rumored to be about 150-200 nukes)"<br /><br />If 150 - 200 is "ok", then then UK is "ok", too: According to the UK NAO (their "Bundesrechnungshof"), the number of the UK's operational warheads is "fewer than 160". Likewise, SIPRI puts the number at 165. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Number_of_warheads , please refer to the linked documents).<br /><br />ii) "UK Vanguard class "up to 128" but more likely 64" - you give that as the primary reason why the UK has more than the minimally required number of warheads.<br /><br />Actually, the number you give is not quite correct: Trident D5 SLBM deployed on the Vanguard class can carry a theoretical maximum of 12 warheads So, the *maximum* number of warheads on a Vanguard is 192. In the U.S., this number is limited to 8 warheads, due to the START I arms reduction treaty. However, as far as I know, the UK is not signatory to START.<br /><br />The real number of warheads per submarine is far lower, though. In 1998, the UK government announced that the Vanguard class would sail with a maximum number of 48 warheads per ship. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme#UK_nuclear_policy , please also review the official UK MoD fact sheet on the nuclear deterrence: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AE97B570-0E9A-48BC-9405-857F5E962507/0/Cm6994_Factsheet4.pdf ) <br /><br />So with one ship at sea at any time plus one ship being prepared to sail, the total number of required warheads is 96. Well below "minimal deterrent".<br /><br />It is also noteworthy that the UK, to my knowledge as the only of the 5 "classic" nuclear powers, has disbanded the "nuclear triad" concept of a combination of air, sea and land-based nuclear weapons. Contrary to France, which maintains a "semi-strategic" nuclear weapon in the form of the ASMP/ASMP-A, the UK has limited itself to the really "big stick", a true form of strategic defense against nuclear attack.<br /><br />So, if anything, I would call the UK the most well behaved of the nuclear club.<br /><br />On the other hand, looking at China, their time of being a well behaved nuclear club member may be coming to an end rather quickly:<br /><br />http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/06/jamestown-foundation-offered-quick.html<br /><br />Best,<br />ChristophUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17564127163995138438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-21235781940576705812009-07-14T13:57:44.798+02:002009-07-14T13:57:44.798+02:00I was fully aware of that, but you didn't read...I was fully aware of that, but you didn't read carefully enough.<br /><br />I was writing that politicians (and others) created the perception that the NNPT was international law, not a treaty that nations could get rid of. There was no perception that by simply getting out of the treaty countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea could legally and legitimately produce nukes.<br /><br />That's relevant in regard to Israel because its behaviour outside of the treaty hasn't been criticized much (in the Western world).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-82656123263081357882009-07-14T13:29:18.827+02:002009-07-14T13:29:18.827+02:00"rarely so Israel - Israel is still no 'o...<i>"rarely so Israel - Israel is still no 'official' nuclear power"</i><br /><br />Of course you know Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear NPT, so you can't apply the statutes in the treaty to them.<br /><br />That's a pretty basic error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com