|
DutchDupe posted:Wasn't a Pakistani nuclear physicist responsible for all sorts of nuclear proliferation with Iran, Libya, North Korea? I don't know, how many wars have India and Pakistan fought against each other? How many wars have they fought since both of them having nuclear weapons? MAD is obviosly terrible, but part of me thinks it works.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:I don't know, how many wars have India and Pakistan fought against each other? How many wars have they fought since both of them having nuclear weapons? MAD is obviosly terrible, but part of me thinks it works. They fought one since 1997.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I don't know, how many wars have India and Pakistan fought against each other? How many wars have they fought since both of them having nuclear weapons? MAD is obviosly terrible, but part of me thinks it works. MAD is an amazingly stupid thing that works really well. Everyone knows if they set off an atomic bomb the US is going to destroy them. We don't even have to use an atomic bomb, we can just bomb your country until it is reduced to rubble. If someone used an atomic bomb we probably would drop 1 nuke, just because, and then send in the military to level the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:Non-proliferation is a good thing, I don't think there is any reasonable argument saying otherwise. If Iran gets the bomb then Saudi Arabia gets the bomb and you've started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. While I agree with less nukes overall is a good thing, I feel like the US telling other countries to not develop their nuclear weapons, and don't get into an arms race is a tad hypocritical. How much can Iran (and any other country who we don't feel is nuke-worthy) milk out of us from constantly trying to make these deals where they keep delaying their nuclear program. Is our resident libertarian candidate saying anything about this yet? I understand the argument that Iran's government isn't stable enough to protect a bomb, but anyone who thinks that the government proper will use a nuke against Israel is crazy. Iran knows that if they do, even the most anti-Israel American's would cheer turning their entire country into a smooth glass slate. The Nastier Nate fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Is our resident libertarian candidate saying anything about this yet? He's opposed. Launched a three-part series of Tweet gifs with his reasons for finding the deal "unacceptable." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:I understand the argument that Iran's government isn't stable enough to protect a bomb... How is this true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:While I agree with less nukes overall is a good thing, I feel like the US telling other countries to not develop their nuclear weapons, and don't get into an arms race is a tad hypocritical. It's not about who's hypocritical, it's just bad for everyone if every disagreement in the violtile middle east can end in ww3
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Imagine the debates. Like this but x100: That debate was complete magic. I need to go rewatch it someday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 05:59
|
|
I cannot imagine a more amused look than Bidens in that moment, it's absolutely "are you hearing this loving guy?" Trump would somehow amplify that.
|
ImPureAwesome posted:It's not about who's hypocritical, it's just bad for everyone if every disagreement in the violtile middle east can end in ww3 So you are under the assumption that they are crazy as gently caress and welcome nuclear war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So you are under the assumption that they are crazy as gently caress and welcome nuclear war? Like there aren't enough gleeful suicide bombers like isis in the middle east as there is. Regardless, Nuclear chicken to solve disputes probably isn't something that should be promoted as the cold war can attest
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:Like there aren't enough gleeful suicide bombers like isis in the middle east as there is. Regardless, Nuclear chicken to solve disputes probably isn't something that should be promoted as the cold war can attest Suicide bombers don't run the country (Iran), dude. Plus, Iran hates Isis. In fact, Iran could be our best friend against Isis. The cold war actually showed us that while we may start proxy wars at every opportunity, no one is going to drop a drat nuke because the repercussions are obvious. You seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Edit: you are just parroting "fear", why is that? Pohl fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So you are under the assumption that they are crazy as gently caress and welcome nuclear war? Yeah, obviously Iran are a huge bunch of dicks, but I think they're main motivation for wanting nuclear weapons is that Israel has at least one and Saudi Arabia is buddy buddy with both us and Russia. Maybe this is just playground rules and we can get Iran to agree to stop developing nuclear weapons if we agree to nuke any country that nukes them first?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
2016 Presidential Primary: PS. It's Your Gun, It's Your Freedom
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:Regardless, Nuclear chicken to solve disputes probably isn't something that should be promoted as the cold war can attest What does this even mean? Can you tell me what your rational was when you posted this, because I really want to know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah, obviously Iran are a huge bunch of dicks, but I think they're main motivation for wanting nuclear weapons is that Israel has at least one and Saudi Arabia is buddy buddy with both us and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:MAD is an amazingly stupid thing that works really well. Everyone knows if they set off an atomic bomb the US is going to destroy them. We don't even have to use an atomic bomb, we can just bomb your country until it is reduced to rubble. If someone used an atomic bomb we probably would drop 1 nuke, just because, and then send in the military to level the country. It works really well until it doesn't and we all die. Historically, we've been a button's press or a President's final authorization away from nuclear war on a sickening number of occasions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Pohl posted:What does this even mean? Can you tell me what your rational was when you posted this, because I really want to know. The main idea is hawks in countries with nukes threatening their rival countries to do what they say or else saber-rattling. Maybe I said it poorly, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let’s win this race together and get to work protecting your right to hold your gun firmly in your own strong hands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:Regardless, Nuclear chicken to solve disputes probably isn't something that should be promoted as the cold war can attest You could make the argument that if the cold war attests anything, it's that nuclear chicken is a great method of solving disputes
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:The main idea is hawks in countries with nukes threatening their rival countries to do what they say or else saber-rattling. Maybe I said it poorly, sorry That makes no sense. According to your logic the west is threatening Iran and similar states with nuclear annihilation. Why wouldn't those non nuclear countries want to develop nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:It works really well until it doesn't and we all die. Historically, we've been a button's press or a President's final authorization away from nuclear war on a sickening number of occasions. Even with human stupidity, it works. Fancy that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That makes no sense. According to your logic the west is threatening Iran and similar states with nuclear annihilation. no, i think the nuclear deal helps to lessen Iran's perceived threat of US's nuclear annihilation of Iran and in return Iran can't build a bomb to threaten say SA/Israel/whoever so they don't feel obliged to build one in parity (let's pretend we believe israel doesn't actually have one) Bob Ojeda posted:You could make the argument that if the cold war attests anything, it's that nuclear chicken is a great method of solving disputes it's true, living in fear of instant glassing for a decade builds a ton of character 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:no, i think the nuclear deal helps to lessen Iran's perceived threat of US's nuclear annihilation of Iran and in return Iran can't build a bomb to threaten say SA/Israel/whoever so they don't feel obliged to build one in parity (let's pretend we believe israel doesn't actually have one) You are getting a little closer, but everyone talking about how bad of a deal this is, is freaking out that Iran is going to nuke Israel. That obviously isn't going to happen, but people seem to want that to be the truth. Iran has been the boogeyman for decades that we reflexively fall back upon, but they are good people. Sure, their government sucks, but I don't hate the Iranian people. They seem to be good guys and gals and I'd hate the idea that we harmed them because their government is awful. Again, people against this deal think Iran is Satan and that they don't care about their own people. That is incorrect. The Iranian Government is horrible, but they are not going to risk their country and their people by nuking Israel. The very idea is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
I like applying the anthropomorphic principle to MAD, which is that any discussion about MAD must definitionally take place in a world where MAD has worked (until that point), since a world in which it has failed won't last very long. It doesn't necessarily serve as evidence that MAD will keep working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Even with human stupidity, it works. Fancy that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov#The_incident
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
MAD (particularly in the context of the Cold War) is idiotic and we're all lucky to be alive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:MAD (particularly in the context of the Cold War) is idiotic and we're all lucky to be alive. While scary, we are all alive. I would like to think these idiotic moments taught us something. You realize we all know about this and other incidents during the Cold War, right? Yeah, that poo poo is scary, but I'm tired of being afraid. Hell, I posted a link where America dropped a live nuke on itself earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
What MAD teaches me is that the Soviet educational system produced sensible and level-headed people. I would hesitate to have MAD where both parties are as irrational as Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I like applying the anthropomorphic principle to MAD, which is that any discussion about MAD must definitionally take place in a world where MAD has worked (until that point), since a world in which it has failed won't last very long. It doesn't necessarily serve as evidence that MAD will keep working. Anthropic. That's a good point, but we've also seen another example of MAD working on a small scale with India and Pakistan not nuking each other despite having their own Cold War. It's not as reliable as abolishing nuclear weapons, but that's not possible with the current geopolitical situation so I'll settle for continued MAD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Anthropic. ...Oh god. How long have I been saying that wrong? Although now it's put me in mind of humanized nuclear missiles so I guess it's not all bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Pohl posted:While scary, we are all alive. I would like to think these idiotic moments taught us something. There's no reason to believe that we know about all of these incidents. You'd think people would learn from stupid catastrophes, but we had two major world wars 1 generation apart. History hasn't ended; things can get really bad really fast. And you can adopt a principled stance against mutual assured destruction without living in fear. I recommend it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:Once one country in the region gets a bomb everyone will want a bomb (like say SA) is the main reason Lowtax has a nuclear program?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Lowtax has a nuclear program? how else do you stave off 4chan
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:There's no reason to believe that we know about all of these incidents. You'd think people would learn from stupid catastrophes, but we had two major world wars 1 generation apart. History hasn't ended; things can get really bad really fast. I agree with everything in this post. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:Has this been posted? Trump tweeted an image with the Waffen-SS in it. I'm just going to quote this again for everyone who questioned whether this would be as fun as 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm just going to quote this again for everyone who questioned whether this would be as fun as 2012. It is only 2 am in my time zone, but what the hell why are you awake? Pohl fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm just going to quote this again for everyone who questioned whether this would be as fun as 2012. Those are Nazis, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Barracuda Bang! posted:Those are Nazis, correct? Why yes, yes they are 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Anthropic. That's a good point, but we've also seen another example of MAD working on a small scale with India and Pakistan not nuking each other despite having their own Cold War. It's not as reliable as abolishing nuclear weapons, but that's not possible with the current geopolitical situation so I'll settle for continued MAD. Russia, the country that actually matters most when it comes to MAD, doesn't even practice MAD as a matter of official nuclear policy. Russia claims it will use a nuke whenever it perceives an existential threat. Putin has talked about "limited nuclear war" and "de-escalating nuclear strikes," and, as nonsensical as that might sound on its face, he's probably right. If NATO tank divisions were to roll into Eastern Ukraine under the pretense of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty, and Russia would drop a tactical nuke on them, how would the US respond? Really, its the second nuke that gets dropped that ends human civilization, not the first one. So I definitely believe there could be a place for nuclear weapons in 21st century war. You just kinda gotta be careful about it and think super postmodern. There could also be cases like a nuclear strike by a non-state actor that couldn't be retaliated against with more nukes. That's all beside the point though because the biggest reason the opposition to the Iran deal by all these candidates is nonsense is because there is no concrete evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. But I think it's important to remember that the principle of MAD is not even in use by all nuclear armed groups, let alone hypothetical future nuclear armed groups. I'm even skeptical of MAD as a working principle during the Cold War, since a number of the close calls were not averted by MAD, but only through some truly miraculous, repeated luck. A nukeless Iran is vastly preferable to a hypothetical nuclear armed Iran because less nukes in existence is always better. Surely, a significant and unilateral drawdown in the US nuclear weapons stockpile could be a winning campaign issue too. It's not just you and me. I feel like less and less Americans nowadays are willing to risk instant incineration for ideology or geopolitical chess games. But that could just be me not being cynical enough again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm just going to quote this again for everyone who questioned whether this would be as fun as 2012. I'm already making plans to take August 7th off, since I'll be on Skype and playing a drinking-game with my US buddies as we watch the debate on the 6th. Yes, I'm planning to get loving plastered almost a month in advance, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 11:10
|
|
