|
The Shortest Path posted:My point is that publicly saying we will never use them is more likely to encourage those like North Korea to make threats. I'm not sure you understand "no first use." We're saying we won't start that fight. Not that we wouldn't end it if someone else started it. If North Korea is stupid enough to go nuclear (protip: the North Korean government is morally bankrupt and evil, but not stupid; nuclear war means they stop getting to have their playground of people forced into their cult of personality. Them having nukes is all about posturing) we would still fire back. No first use is just saying that the United States refuses to be the ones who start launching nukes first, because that means bare minimum the end of modern civilization as we know it and billions of deaths. If we want to have any claim to moral legitimacy in the world abroad, we should be working aggressively to dispel the justified notion that Americans are psychopaths drunk on our own power and willing to murder millions of people like it's no big deal, just because we can. We have to show the world that we're better than openly calling for first strike policies and murdering children and wedding parties with drones. Until we prove to everyone else that we're better than the neoconservative garbage excuses for human beings that run poo poo, they're justified in being terrified of us.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:My point is that publicly saying we will never use them is more likely to encourage those like North Korea to make threats. The deterrent lies in us double pinky swearing that we'll turn the world to ash if any of you other fuckers even thinks about nuking us. It does not lie in us telling everyone we're crazier than a shithouse rat, and we're willing to whistle a jaunty tune as we start Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:
If you define "expert" as "realist" then sure. But that's like saying that the only real position that ought be considered in Economics is laissez faire capitalism and that the only real position that ought be considered in Islam is ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
Lightning Knight posted:That's silly logic. Nuclear weapons are like airport security theater: they're very impressive and the general public can ooh and aah at how cool the US Military is and how badass we are when we dicksmack the Russians. We keep them around because we can't unilaterally disarm and all the people who don't like us in the world and have nukes - the Russians, the Israelis, the Pakistanis, the North Koreans, etc. - would never disarm. So we have them on the off chance that one day North Korea decides gently caress it, let's end this poo poo right the gently caress now. But that's never going to happen outside of Dick Cheney's wildest fever dreams, so in practice they're very shiny and impressive paper weights we mount on the wall like antique guns. Can't have Pakistan both ways there, amigo. Are they allies or do they dislike the US fundamentally? Does the US feel the same? Since they're effectively a failed state how can you ascribe any meaningful policy in such absolutist terms? What meaningful ally do they gain on the world stage by ignoring US interests? Do they not have far more to lose?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Lol if you think that denouncing a no first use policy means I want nukes to ever be used. No it doesn't, anyone who wants to start a conventional war is capable of correctly reasoning that No First Use is the only rational strategy and that any nuclear first strike posture is a bluff. If you dispute this, please name all likely or even possible situations where you think destroying our civilization in nuclear fire would advance the geopolitical interests of the United States in response to some diplomatic or conventional crisis. Here I'll start:
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If you define "expert" as "realist" then sure. But that's like saying that the only real position that ought be considered in Economics is laissez faire capitalism and that the only real position that ought be considered in Islam is ISIS. I'm perfectly willing to accept the expertise of constructivist and neoliberal IR scholars, but most constructivist strains tend to be incredibly fringe, and neoliberals are at least experts with legitimate, well thought out opinions. I'm not one of them, but they're certainly experts. Except neoliberals (and note to all: in this context it doesn't mean what you think it means) aren't likely to agree with you either on this one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:24
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Everyone knows they'll be turned to glass if they use a nuke. Except the united states and that's mostly likely still true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Can't have Pakistan both ways there, amigo. Are they allies or do they dislike the US fundamentally? Does the US feel the same? Since they're effectively a failed state how can you ascribe any meaningful policy in such absolutist terms? What meaningful ally do they gain on the world stage by ignoring US interests? Do they not have far more to lose? What do you mean? The Pakistanis being clearly disdainful of us and also our allies out of historical, political, and military necessity (as viewed by the American foreign policy establishment) are not mutually exclusive realities. Considering there was literally a plot by members of the upper echelons of their government and intelligence apparatus to hide one of the greatest criminals against the United States in history, I'd say there's historical evidence for them being happy to gently caress us over for their own purposes. It doesn't help that we happily drone strike their civilians with impunity. I will admit, and clarify, that Pakistan isn't a direct military threat to us. But they do represent a military threat to India, given the right circumstances, and are dangerous in the sense that they are unreliable and cannot be trusted. The fact that they and the Indians also have nuclear weapons just adds layers on to that problem. quote:DnD - and most people, to be fair - have an understanding of international relations that is incredibly uninformed and dismissive of expert opinion. In no other field is this the case. In economics or history or chemistry or public policy, the opinions of experts are generally listened to, and while there is space for disagreement, they are at least respected aa experts. "wah, why won't you guys take the guys who intellectually justified and stood by the decision to invade Iraq seriously, even though it was a pointless and unmitigated disaster in every conceivable way that even Dick loving Cheney saw coming in the '90s?" Neoconservatives aren't experts in anything except the quickest and most efficient ways to tarnish the American reputation and use American military resources to rapidly murder large amounts of foreigners in the name of "spreading democracy." Their opinions on foreign policy are worth about as much as Donald Trump's. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Lol if you think that denouncing a no first use policy means I want nukes to ever be used. Boy howdy is this a dumb post. No first use does not weaken any diplomatic situation because a first use doctrine isn't a credible threat. The US isn't going to strike first under any scenario and everyone knows it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:First use scares a lot of people. They worry that some crazy racist can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes. They worry about needlessly insulting foreign leaders. They worry about sufficient knowledge. And so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it doesn't, anyone who wants to start a conventional war is capable of correctly reasoning that No First Use is the only rational strategy and that any nuclear first strike posture is a bluff. None obviously, but the threat of doing so most certainly is. Which is why it's critical that we maintain American credibility, so foreign Nations understand that the response to wonton aggression will be severe. The actions of states cannot be so easily reduced to game theory and 'bluffing'. The fact that you're thinking in those terms is revealing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Boy howdy is this a dumb post. They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. So thank you for proving my point. It's pointlessly limiting, and only incentivizes aggression. There is no benefit to a no first use policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm perfectly willing to accept the expertise of constructivist and neoliberal IR scholars, but most constructivist strains tend to be incredibly fringe, and neoliberals are at least experts with legitimate, well thought out opinions. I'm not one of them, but they're certainly experts. China, USSR and India: Neither experts nor rational actors all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:None obviously, but the threat of doing so most certainly is. Which is why it's critical that we maintain American credibility, so foreign Nations understand that the response to wonton aggression will be severe. Your realist theory depends on other states assuming we will act massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will for sure you better believe it bub? edit: wait is wonton aggression when China invades?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:None obviously, but the threat of doing so most certainly is. Which is why it's critical that we maintain American credibility, so foreign Nations understand that the response to wonton aggression will be severe. Nobody believes that the United States is going to First Strike anyone, there is no credibility to be maintained in pretending we will. Especially when conventional unstoppable death from above is both an actual realistic response and something everyone 110% believes we'll do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Boy howdy is this a dumb post. The US has always had a get out jail free card by having mostly undisputed air and sea superiority. No reason to have a first nuclear strike when you can pretty safely bomb conventionally. I wonder how that might change if say Iran had a credible cruise missile threat to keep us carriers out of the Persian gulf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. Ah the old "you completely demolished my argument but it actually proves me right" line. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. Except we've already gone over that the threat of nuclear weapons has already been called historically as a bluff during the Cold War and utterly failed to prevent massive, expensive, and pointless proxy wars from flaring up between the US and the USSR. Threatening to commit murder by car bomb while you're sitting in the car with your intended victim isn't a very compelling threat when your victim knows you want to keep on living. The whole theory is bunk, and it's especially hilarious since the Cold War is over and we don't even have the useful fiction of a massive nuclear exchange between the two major powers anymore. edit: quote:Nobody believes that the United States is going to First Strike anyone, there is no credibility to be maintained in pretending we will. Especially when conventional unstoppable death from above is both an actual realistic response and something everyone 110% believes we'll do. Also this. An aircraft carrier battlegroup is a more credible threat than a nuclear weapon, and we have more than enough aircraft carriers to go around for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Ah the old "you completely demolished my argument but it actually proves me right" line. Nice.  I don't grok Iron Rose's gimmick but it's best treated with utmost scorn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Your realist theory depends on other states assuming we will act massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will for sure you better believe it bub? pretty sure iraq is a fantastic example of us acting massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will. Gyges posted:Nobody believes that the United States is going to First Strike anyone, there is no credibility to be maintained in pretending we will. Especially when conventional unstoppable death from above is both an actual realistic response and something everyone 110% believes we'll do. On the contrary. We must maintain our credibility to the greatest extent possible, because the deterrent value is not insignificant. Once again, nuclear weapons are not tactical weapons! They are strategic and defensive, and I strongly urge you to consider reading some actual nuclear weapons theory. There's lots of words written about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. The risk that we will actually destroy ourselves over this or that piddly crisis is exactly equal to the risk that we'll freak out and destroy ourselves anyway despite an official No First Use Policy. i.e. almost zero, and requires them to think us so unpredictable and irrational that we can't be dealt with in any way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Except we've already gone over that the threat of nuclear weapons has already been called historically as a bluff during the Cold War and utterly failed to prevent massive, expensive, and pointless proxy wars from flaring up between the US and the USSR. Threatening to commit murder by car bomb while you're sitting in the car with your intended victim isn't a very compelling threat when your victim knows you want to keep on living. The whole theory is bunk, and it's especially hilarious since the Cold War is over and we don't even have the useful fiction of a massive nuclear exchange between the two major powers anymore. Pray tell, how many people died in the proxy wars between the two great powers of the world when compared to those who died in the two world wars? I am happy you also agree that aircraft carriers and the USN are a fundamental component of our national defence and world peace, and must be supported and strengthened however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm perfectly willing to accept the expertise of constructivist and neoliberal IR scholars, but most constructivist strains tend to be incredibly fringe, and neoliberals are at least experts with legitimate, well thought out opinions. I'm not one of them, but they're certainly experts. How about Jeb!'s adviser John Noonan's takedown of Trump's "Yes first use" policy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The risk that we will actually destroy ourselves over this or that piddly crisis is exactly equal to the risk that we'll freak out and destroy ourselves anyway despite an official No First Use Policy. You're still missing the point I'm afraid. While it's true that a threat is useful to a large part insofar as it will be followed through, the threat in the first place is still nonetheless an incredibly valuable diplomatic tool. No sense in throwing out part of the toolbox for no gain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Let's be fair to Adams here- he hadn't yet shown himself to be this dumb with nuclear loving weapons. I mean, unless you count supporting Trump. On some level, though, I suspect that Trump is smart enough to figure out that charred corpses don't show up to the irradiated skeletons of casinos and hotels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You're still missing the point I'm afraid. While it's true that a threat is useful to a large part insofar as it will be followed through, the threat in the first place is still nonetheless an incredibly valuable diplomatic tool. Nixon's "I'm literally INSANE!" foreign policy: a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:On the contrary. We must maintain our credibility to the greatest extent possible, because the deterrent value is not insignificant. You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You're still missing the point I'm afraid. While it's true that a threat is useful to a large part insofar as it will be followed through, the threat in the first place is still nonetheless an incredibly valuable diplomatic tool. No gain? So a step towards total nuclear disarmament is undesirable to you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Let's be fair to Adams here- he hadn't yet shown himself to be this dumb with nuclear loving weapons. The city of New Reno has a thriving casino market with both normies and ghouls as patrons 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Guys, if you aren't for nuclear death-fire in support of american interests, you must be a pinko-commie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Pray tell, how many people died in the proxy wars between the two great powers of the world when compared to those who died in the two world wars? The proxy wars were much more damaging to the United States culturally, economically, and politically, and since you clearly only give a poo poo about American well-being, you should recognize that as a bad thing. A lot more people died in World War II than Vietnam, but World War II did great things for the US and Vietnam was a shitshow that obliterated our domestic political stability for almost three generations. Since you clearly only care about Americans, the simple math here should be obvious to you. Furthermore, mutually assured destruction was a theory that made way more sense when the two main powers could measure their nuclear dicks in terms of tens of thousands of warheads. We're down to sub five thousand. The Russians are barely a second rate world military power at this point, only capable of bullying those direct adjacent to them. It's completely feasible that they could do something stupid militarily and we respond conventionally and have it not escalate to nukes, which just wasn't true even 30 years ago. Aircraft carriers are bloated and obsolete pieces of military hardware meant for international dick waving and wasting taxpayer money on engorging the military-industrial complex, but since we already have them, they're a better bet than pretending like we're total sociopaths willing to commit global genocide over a Baltic State.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory Kissinger makes Iron Rose wet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How about Jeb!'s adviser John Noonan's takedown of Trump's "Yes first use" policy? Trump's "first use" nuclear policy is very different from the status quo, nor is Noonan's (excellent) rant on the subject in any way in contradiction with the status quo. Failing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean we're going to actually use nuclear weapons y'all. It just means that other states by definition cannot discount that. Actually using nuclear weapons defeats their purpose, but maintaining the nuclear umbrella is an excellent deterrent to not just nuclear war, but conventional war between powers as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Trump's "first use" nuclear policy is very different from the status quo, nor is Noonan's (excellent) rant on the subject in any way in contradiction with the status quo. Paradoxish posted:You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Guys, if you aren't for nuclear death-fire in support of american interests, you must be a pinko-commie. Reminder that we are actually arguing with an avowed Maoist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Petr posted:Reminder that we are actually arguing with an avowed Maoist. Lol fail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
If the entire point of nuclear policy is security theater - which is in fact all it is - then why is the moral low-ground of telling the world that we're abject sociopaths willing to threaten to murder everyone if one country steps out of line more worthwhile than the moral high-ground of telling the world that we refuse to be the ones to cause the apocalypse, but that doesn't mean we won't defend them from someone who would? Especially since the former is blatantly false and the latter is more or less true, even if not motivated out of altruism? If it's all posturing, why is being the bad guy so much drat better than being the good guy? Why must we do the stupidest possible things and justify everyone hating us and our control of the world, instead of using that control to do something good? Why, I suppose, do American imperialists insist on wanting to be remembered in history for having been loving evil jackasses, instead of people who wanted to actually help everyone, not just Americans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:No gain? So a step towards total nuclear disarmament is undesirable to you? Yes! Nuclear disarmament is terrifying to me, as it should be to everyone. Paradoxish posted:You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy? Ah, I'm seeing the problem here. You're assuming that the character of a government matters when it comes to IR. A cabinet can certainly shape and direct IR strategy, but they are nonetheless fundamentally constrained by the anarchic nature of international relations. Using nuclear weapons will never be a rational action. Maintaining them for the purpose of threatening their use is a rational action. Lightning Knight posted:
International dick waving is legitimately and unironically the most important part of any military, so yeah, that's actually pretty rad. Shbobdb posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory Hah. Literally IRL one of my most treasured possessions is a portrait of Kissinger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
I normally I would hesitate to jump into a shitpost storm like this, but honestly, any situation that would be bad enough for the US to use nukes as a first strike would probably be bad enough for us to disregard a signed agreement about No First Use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:pretty sure iraq is a fantastic example of us acting massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will. Oh my God. That you can't tell the difference between an action that politicians can justify to others/themselves with a plausible-sounding (but bullshit) narrative of why it's in the national interest, which actually is in the interest of some actors (defense contractors, people who benefit from Republican reelection, etc), and an action that everyone knows would destroy ourselves with no conceivable benefit to anyone...now that is revealing. You should stick to vaguely condescending to everyone that disagrees with you and saying they're not smart enough to "get it", this is a disaster that's only proving how little you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:45
|
|