|
Willo567 posted:It is, but I don't think they should be scaring people into thinking a nuclear war could happen any day now Odd words from the guy constantly asking if he's about to get nuked. 
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Being anti-proliferation is a good thing. Until someone says 'Nah.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I've never been given a satisfactory answer as to why a nuke going off would cause unrelated countries that have nothing to do with the conflict to start nuking each other. Is France so tense that they're going to impulsively nuke Switzerland as soon as they hear that a mushroom cloud went up elsewhere? If everyone could just be cool and agree to keep it to exactly one bomb then everyone could probably move on and be fine. The fear is that the end game of a dying nuclear country is the "samson option" of just stray nuclear bombs everywhere at allies and enemies alike in an effort to make sure everyone has a stake in keeping your empire going. Which is a solid plan when only one guy thought of it, but becomes a problem when multiple countries came out with that same genius idea. Does france have a dead hand? does france have a samson option? Hopefully not. They aren't going to tell me if they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
If I am kim3, I would launch another missile right now. Orange turd lit a fire in middle east he has resource to deal with NK.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
e: nvm
Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They aren't going to tell me if they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If everyone could just be cool and agree to keep it to exactly one bomb then everyone could probably move on and be fine. The fear is that the end game of a dying nuclear country is the "samson option" of just stray nuclear bombs everywhere at allies and enemies alike in an effort to make sure everyone has a stake in keeping your empire going. Which is a solid plan when only one guy thought of it, but becomes a problem when multiple countries came out with that same genius idea. Does france have a dead hand? does france have a samson option? Hopefully not. They aren't going to tell me if they do. The Israeli "Samson Option" is specifically targeted at whichever country has successfully destroyed much of Israel, serving as a final "gently caress you" and possible end to the invasion. It does not mean hurling nukes at literally everyone around you, allies and enemies alike, for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If I am kim3, I would launch another missile right now. Orange turd lit a fire in middle east he has resource to deal with NK.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:It is, but I don't think they should be scaring people into thinking a nuclear war could happen any day now The reality is that nobody really knows how likely nuclear war is. We have a small sample size from a world with few nuclear powers, and even in that sample we had near misses. Maybe we'll keep getting lucky, or were unlucky to have those near misses in the first place, and we'll continue to amble on since nobody wants to be the person to normalize using weapons that could destroy civilization. Or maybe we'll find out the hard way that we've been discounting something that was always inevitable once enough people got the option to do it. I don't think nuclear war is just around the corner, but if enough people roll dice enough times, one of these days someone will roll even an improbable combination. If it does happen, complacency from people who didn't do more to fight proliferation over the last few decades will obviously be partially to blame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Israeli "Samson Option" is specifically targeted at whichever country has successfully destroyed much of Israel, serving as a final "gently caress you" and possible end to the invasion. It does not mean hurling nukes at literally everyone around you, allies and enemies alike, for no reason. Samson defeated his enemies by just pulling the whole building down. The idea of the samson option is based on quotes like: "The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?" and it's never been an open confirmed policy but just a thing various people in power have hinted might be a thing that everyone on earth needs to help protect them because if they don't we aren't going to mourn them being gone, we are coming with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Related, I'm wondering if a NK invasion would be a green light for Russia to do another land-grab in the Baltics. The last time Russia did a land grab in the Baltics was 1945, why on Earth do you think the US invading North Korea would be a good time for Russia to actually invade a NATO nation or three?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Samson defeated his enemies by just pulling the whole building down. The idea of the samson option is based on quotes like: The guy who made that quote is an Israeli novelist and journalist, not someone who has any ability to speak with authority on Israel's nuclear strike capability. Another quote from him: quote:The Palestinians want a Hitlerite Judenrein state, however much violence it takes to accomplish it. Not separation, elimination. They say so openly. Read the translations of what is being preached in the mosques and declaimed by the Palestine Authority. People can’t seem to accept that if there ever was a chance for a solution, there is none now. Two state, one state, no. It’s not going to happen. It’s the false idol of “solutionism,” fronting for the glide path to a final or semi-final solution. I don't think a crazy writer who wants to obliterate the entire world in revenge for antisemitism is the best guy to be listening to unless he becomes a supervillain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
I don't want to spend any more time on Israel. But geographically small country can not play MAD the way large countries like the big three can. You simply don't have land to exchange nuclear blows with a geographically large country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
This is why Israel spends a lot of money on submarines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The guy who made that quote is an Israeli novelist and journalist, not someone who has any ability to speak with authority on Israel's nuclear strike capability. Another quote from him: Sure, but that is what people mean when they say "the samson option", not just a second strike against an enemy. The samson option is the threat of "pulling down the pillars" of the earth once you've lost. (with the intent that a threat to do so would get everyone on your side, willingly or not)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
It's stupid; you've got so many strategically important targets and only so many nukes. You're going to attack your aggressors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's stupid; you've got so many strategically important targets and only so many nukes. You're going to attack your aggressors. In Israel's case they almost certainly consider all of their neighbors ongoing aggressors to, even though the instigating nuke might fly from India or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sure, but that is what people mean when they say "the samson option", not just a second strike against an enemy. The samson option is the threat of "pulling down the pillars" of the earth once you've lost. (with the intent that a threat to do so would get everyone on your side, willingly or not) The only thing that's really been credibly talked about with Israel in that sense is that they would respond to an actual conquering of their country by attempting to utterly destroy their attacker with nukes. The name comes because Samson tore down the Temple of Dagon to crush himself and the Philistines inside, sacrificing himself to destroy the enemy. There's not a single credible source that it would also involve randomly attacking your allies and neutral countries and thus cause global armageddon, and I don't know of any credible source that any nation has plans to do such a thing in the event of a war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Well, yes they hate all Arabs, but they're gonna be targeting the Arabs that actually pose a threat to them. It serves them no strategic purpose to point missiles at Europe to try and cajole them into helping - if you've the bombs to spare, then you're better served pointing them at the enemy. Just like how the DPRK is not gonna threaten to nuke loving China or Russia when they've got SK/Japan and the US to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, yes they hate all Arabs, but they're gonna be targeting the Arabs that actually pose a threat to them. It serves them no strategic purpose to point missiles at Europe to try and cajole them into helping - if you've the bombs to spare, then you're better served pointing them at the enemy. Maybe, but bluffing your allies and supposed-neutral third parties into thinking you'll trigger the Wargames All-Out scenario on them if they think they'll be existentially destroyed certainly has value. The real issue is when we'll start having directly competing minor nuclear powers do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:Maybe, but bluffing your allies and supposed-neutral third parties into thinking you'll trigger the Wargames All-Out scenario on them if they think they'll be existentially destroyed certainly has value. But if you're already going nuclear, you go nuclear on your enemies! Nukes are the great equalizer, yes? Once you've got the A-OK, for example a clear existential threat, against a peer you're going to gently caress them up, and against superpower then you're going to give them a big bloody nose so they better think twice about it. You don't aim them at other nations, that's pointless! Whatever support you could cajole out of them that way, is not going to be any more successful than if you just went and employed the damned things against your enemy. It's moronic. What kind of support could possibly outweight outright devastating your opponent? Now, you can definitely use them to incentivize other nations to prop you up, but on a different context: you do not want a nuclear state to collapse and risk the bombs ending up on the black market, and in the case of a civil war it'd make you think twice about intervening against the guys holding the nukes - or at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:But if you're already going nuclear, you go nuclear on your enemies! Nukes are the great equalizer, yes? Once you've got the A-OK, for example a clear existential threat, against a peer you're going to gently caress them up, and against superpower then you're going to give them a big bloody nose so they better think twice about it. "Okay, we're going ahead with our plan to start a carpet bomb campaign on Iran because they kept building up their forces in a worrying way. Now, let's be clear: we don't want this to go nuclear, at least not if we can avoid it. Now we're not saying you guys need to drop everything and form a military coalition with us in this endeavor... buuuuuuuuut if you don't, if we have to go it alone, we might hit more resistance that we expected. And if that happens, we might be pushed in the heat of the moment to use those nuclear missiles (that we may or may not have) and one or five of those missiles miiiight malfunction and wander a bit, possibly toward your borders, which miiiiiight end up triggering some automatic missile warning systems you or your buddies have in place. Maybe, hard to say, eh?" Kerning Chameleon fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
I think in general it's probably pretty safe to say that none of the super crazy nuclear technologies or strategies are real or implemented. That no one really would build a cobalt bomb or use the samson option and dead hand is probably not on a hair trigger and would only go off on a real legitimate strike. But just the door being open for them to be possible and no one ever being able to be 1000% sure is it's own thing. Like I would bet a lot of money that no country REALLY has any samson option plan. And everyone would have chickened out of MAD if pushed came to shove, but betting a lot of hypothetical money and betting the life of everyone on planet earth are pretty different. I think we would hope that the worst case of the nuclear war is everyone faces off and the good guys shoot the bad guys and the bad guys shoot the good guys and then it's over. Because clearly it'd be the most deadly event in all of human history but we would also clearly solidly win in the end. And we hope no one did anything crazy like shoot all the political flash points and go down in all consuming fire and try to make a nuclear war a strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
So I just read the last couple of pages and wanted to cheer everyone up by noting how North Korea has agreed to stay in dialogue mode in anticipation of the Pyeongchang Olympics in response to Jeffrey Feltman's visit but uh...I can't find any English language articles about this at all, even though it's been a common topic on local news. Seriously, do reporters get off on trying to get people to cream their pants in anticipation of nuclear war here? Why are they doing this? I'm getting more articles about American athletes not participating at all, which is especially weird since Trump Administration officials immediately disowned this idea. I did find this article while searching though. The art's pretty rad. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5166947/North-Korean-propaganda-charts-countrys-sporting-success.html ...Although I'm posting it mainly because it's such a good example of idiotic North Korean assumptions. The author chooses to interpret these posters literally so as to claim that they are intended as brainwashing fodder. I like the one that they just assume is supposed to be taking place at the Sydney Olympics, even though absolutely nothing in the poster implies a specific location.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Seriously, do reporters get off on trying to get people to cream their pants in anticipation of nuclear war here? Drama = Money Anything reported by the media is going to be hyper-dramatized bullshit. If it even approaches the truth it is purely by accident. No editor on Earth would allow "Everything is fine, everyone calm down" to go to print.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes. Unless there's money in it. Or the sponsors will it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Dan Drezner used to be a 'war would be too pointless and destructive to take it seriously as something that could happen' guy, but after talking to people close to the issue, he's come around to being worried that the Trump administration really means the things they're saying because they believe North Korea intends to use their nuclear weapons to force reunification of the Korean peninsula. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/14/tell-me-how-trumps-north-korea-gambit-ends/ If we do end up going to war, it sure seems like waiting around all this time for the North Koreans to continue developing their nuclear/missile program will have been a huge mistake. Obviously that logic applies to the future though too. https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/941331769810354177 Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/941369163439775744
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the input, warmongering senator who has no insight or authority into the actual decision making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Thanks for the input, warmongering senator who has no insight or authority into the actual decision making. He talks to Trump pretty regularly these days, and presumably has access to other national security figures in the administration. The guy's a piece of poo poo, but saying he has no insight or authority seems like a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He talks to Trump pretty regularly these days, and presumably has access to other national security figures in the administration. The guy's a piece of poo poo, but saying he has no insight or authority seems like a stretch. Sure, he obviously talks to our useless president. Yet articles like this have been written since March. gently caress Graham and his masturbatory fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JBWolfsthal/status/941387260506923008 This guy claims to have spoken to members of the administration and the military about this He's the director of Global Zero, and was apparently a special assistant to the president
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
What fantasy miracle plan do these people think they have to prevent military retaliation? North Korea's entire existence essentially depends on the ability to make it extremely terrible for as many civilians as possible if they are attacked. That system hasn't decayed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/JBWolfsthal/status/941387260506923008 Horrible as it will be, I legit think he's going to do it. He's an idiot, has surrounded himself with lackeys and morons, and probably thinks becoming a War President is the ticket to getting himself out of investigations and not being worshiped enough by the ~media~. Counting on the US military to talk him down is probably futile. Buckle up. (Hope I'm wrong) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
As cold as it sounds, I'd rather have what's increasingly seeming like an inevitable war with North Korea before they have nuclear missiles that can hit the mainland USA, not than after. If we have to have it at all, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:12
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Fintilgin posted:Horrible as it will be, I legit think he's going to do it. He's an idiot, has surrounded himself with lackeys and morons, and probably thinks becoming a War President is the ticket to getting himself out of investigations and not being worshiped enough by the ~media~. Pssh, it's not as if the media ever rewarded him for making a big explosion somewhere else... Oh, yeah. Crap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:As cold as it sounds, I'd rather have what's increasingly seeming like an inevitable war with North Korea before they have nuclear missiles that can hit the mainland USA, not than after. They already do have that capability, though it presumably hasn't been mass produced yet. It's not a bonkers position either way though, since both action and inaction carry risks. The deciding factor in making me think this has horrible idea written all over it is that I don't trust Trump at all to be the one making these decisions. If it does come to war though, at least the last three US presidents (especially the last two) will deserve some of the blame for kicking the can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:As cold as it sounds, I'd rather have what's increasingly seeming like an inevitable war with North Korea before they have nuclear missiles that can hit the mainland USA, not than after. They can already reliably hit cities in Japan and South Korea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:They can already reliably hit cities in Japan and South Korea. Right, so start the war now so only non-american civilians are killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Right, so start the war now so only non-american civilians are killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:07
|
|
