“Nuclear-weapon states should negotiate and conclude a treaty on no-first-use of nuclear weapons against each other or make a political statement in this regard,” Sun said.
China and India are currently the only two nuclear powers to formally maintain a no first use policy. Russia and the United States have the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals.
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.
removed by mod
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.
Last I remember, USA was the only country to have abused nukes against Japan, and later USA and UK sent nuclear ships to nuke India (Russia helped save us from those white devils). USA also supplied banned clusterbombs to NATO proxy Ukraine, which they used against Russia. Russia neither used nukes nor banned weapons.
