|
it’s cool that we’re trying to develop tactical bikes again, which are weapons that could only ever be used against massed formations of armor and infantry to be worthwhile.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
is that like a camo bike or black with a sick red racing stripe or what
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Comrayn posted:is that like a camo bike or black with a sick red racing stripe or what It's Kaneda's bike
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
I dunno how nukes autocorrected to bikes, but ok. basically, by developing “usable” nuclear weapons they’re signaling that they plan on going to war with another conventional military power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
we cannot allow a bike gap
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I dunno how nukes autocorrected to bikes, but ok. they probably just realized that the us can't actually do peer warfare with conventional weapons
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
tactical bikes that take out tank formations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpH1yMGxh5E
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
The whole point of banning tactical nukes is that they're too great a threat in escalating into a total nuclear war Its the same reason icbms don't have an 'off' switch, because as soon as you hit the button, you're committed, the sequence cannot be stopped
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
THAT'S NOT HOW MAD WORKS YOU IDIOTS HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN BASIC GAME THEORY
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
Michael Bayleaf posted:tactical bikes that take out tank formations Ah yes, the alternate reality movie where the Confederacy and the United States team up to blow Middle-Eastern-Latin-American-North-African-Communist-Something US M-60 tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:THAT'S NOT HOW MAD WORKS YOU IDIOTS somewhere in an amphetamine fueled haze eric garland gets a semi
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
How do the expect nk to react to having a bloody nose Wtf are they thinking South Korea is lovely  good food, people, film, sights...Pls rebel against your mushhead prez, an actually pr decent country is gonna get killed..you guys have guns right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
isnt porn illegal in SK tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
that would explain why korean MMOs are all so insanely horny
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
they gave us Old Boy and I Saw the Devil though, whereas America gave us Ironman 3 so its pretty obvious we should be rooting for a swift and terrible defeat for the USA fast enough that Seoul is unharmed
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:isnt porn illegal in SK tho they have like “BJs” that are broadcast jockeys on video streaming that are basically camgirls but they don’t show everything that’s about all I know
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The whole point of banning tactical nukes is that they're too great a threat in escalating into a total nuclear war 🇷🇺  🇷🇺 ESCALATE TO DE-ESCALATE 🇷🇺🇷🇺https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/951016009741123584 https://twitter.com/annafifield/status/951036176017715200
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:🇷🇺 Cheng is making fun of the KCNA just making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:THAT'S NOT HOW MAD WORKS YOU IDIOTS forgotten? what in these folks circumstances would compel them to learn game theory in some fashion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:THAT'S NOT HOW MAD WORKS YOU IDIOTS The idea is that as long as the strike doesn't threaten the Kim Regime's existence they can get away with it outside MAD because retaliation would still be much worse for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
trump is waiting for the olympics to start before launch for maximum drama. that’s just good tv baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
The problems are 1. It almost by definition couldn't accomplish anything and 2. It could be mistaken for the opening salvo of an existence-threatening offensive (not unreasonably)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:The idea is that as long as the strike doesn't threaten the Kim Regime's existence they can get away with it outside MAD because retaliation would still be much worse for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
the whole idea behind MAD is that a strike is always retaliated with. You have to demonstrate both the willingness and the ability to to strike back, at least proportionally. The instant you don't retaliate, is the instant you've demonstrated that you're showing you're not committed to MAD, which would only encourage further strikes. Therefore, any nuclear strike on your territory must be responded to, at least proportionally, or the entire logic of MAD falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the whole idea behind MAD is that a strike is always retaliated with. You have to demonstrate both the willingness and the ability to to strike back, at least proportionally. The instant you don't retaliate, is the instant you've demonstrated that you're showing you're not committed to MAD, which would only encourage further strikes. i think the deviation from the normal here is that NK doesn't actually have the AD part down yet, they only have a few nukes and can't actually end the world, so there's a certain insane logic to the reasoning presumably NK would be free to retaliate conventionally and not trigger our MAD response though
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
i mean, normally this kind of thing is discussed over diplomatic channels by serious men on both sides who calculate each response carefully, rather than being led by the random tweets of an angry sundowning idiot, so who knows what would trigger our MAD response or not
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
whether you have one or one million nukes, the logic doesn't change. in the case of one, you simply need to make it as destructive as possible, and not waste it. but you always have to retaliate, and the instant you don't, is the instant you're dead anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:whether you have one or one million nukes, the logic doesn't change. in the case of one, you simply need to make it as destructive as possible, and not waste it. but you always have to retaliate, and the instant you don't, is the instant you're dead anyway. this would be true in the case of an american all-out first strike, which isn't going to happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
no, you're not following the logic here the assumption behind MAD, is 'if we are attacked, we will retaliate' that's an assumption, and the other player has to believe it if you are attacked, and don't retaliate, you're undermining that assumption meaning that other player doesn't believe it meaning they are free to launch an all out attack, because they believe you won't retaliate therefore, in order to prevent that, you have to retaliate against any attack so that they believe you
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
so if the US does any nuclear attack, and you only have one bomb, you're best bet is to just throw it an NY, because you are dead anyway, so you may as well kill as many as possible
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
If america goes in, it'll be all in. I cant see any sort of tactilol strike against NK hedging their bets that Kim wont retaliate. Kim has to retaliate if there is a direct attack by the US/Japan regardless of the severity of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:no, you're not following the logic here but the us logic is that "they probably won't retaliate with nukes if we only punch them here and here and here" so clearly the us believes NK is still deterred enough by actual MAD to not start it and again, it's not MAD if one side can only assure the destruction of one or two cities
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
retaliation would be suicide when you only have one bomb it's like that classic cop scenario where there's 15 swat guys with rifles on someone and the victim decides to "reach for his waistband" nobody's going to commit suicide because "well MAD logic dictates that i kill my country now" there's such a thing as a bluff
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
whether or not the US acts rationally, doesn't change the rational course of action for the other player, in this case NK - if the US is committed to launching a nuclear attack, then you are still committed to retaliating, because again, you are dead anyway, so you may as well kill as many of the other side as possible, so they can go to hell with you
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Duscat posted:retaliation would be suicide when you only have one bomb ITS SUICIDE REGARDLESS If you loving hate your enemy and he pre-empts you and you dont use all your force you will only be attacked again and again until there isn't anything left!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
do you understand why nuclear deterrence works in the first place? game theory is actually counter-intuitive, but it's a vital part of nuclear strategy, and if you don't get your head around it, you won't really understand what 'nuclear deterrence' actually means. you aren't just responding to the immediate situation, but the situation that follows after - you are just thinking about your enemy, you're also thinking about what you enemy thinks about you - and what your enemy, thinks about you, thinking about your enemy, and so on ad infinitum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:whether or not the US acts rationally, doesn't change the rational course of action for the other player, in this case NK - if the US is committed to launching a nuclear attack, then you are still committed to retaliating, because again, you are dead anyway, so you may as well kill as many of the other side as possible, so they can go to hell with you though it begs the question why the US is now suddenly not so worried about north korea's conventional deterrence; white house full of morons etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:whether or not the US acts rationally, doesn't change the rational course of action for the other player, in this case NK - if the US is committed to launching a nuclear attack, then you are still committed to retaliating, because again, you are dead anyway, so you may as well kill as many of the other side as possible, so they can go to hell with you yes, again, if it's an all-in nuclear first strike aimed at completely incapacitating your strike back ability that's not what's being talked about though, the US plan is some retarded "bloody nose" strike, which, stupid as it is, is being planned as specifically not triggering all-out retaliation by the norks
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:do you understand why nuclear deterrence works in the first place? game theory is actually counter-intuitive, but it's a vital part of nuclear strategy, and if you don't get your head around it, you won't really understand what 'nuclear deterrence' actually means. you don't HAVE nuclear deterrence against the US if all you can blow up is one, possibly foreign, city e: not in the MAD sense you certainly have a great deal of deterrence against sane US governments because any threat of escalating a conflict into a nuclear one is a serious danger
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
it would be a real bummer if japan got nuked again. a real, real bummer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:50
|
|
