|
CommieGIR posted:Those were so out of date, its part of why Khrushchev's Cuba policy was so laughable: He withdrew missiles in Cuba in trade for withdrawls of US missiles in Turkey and Italy, but we really were not giving anything up, ICBMs had replaced the IRBMs long before that happened, so it was going to happen anyways. Well, it did gave the Soviets more time to react in the event of a war; same reason the US was nervous about IRBMs in Cuba, when they're that close instead of going halfway round the globe, and in a period before nuclear-armed subs are all over the place, you run more risk of having all your nukes blown up before you can launch them.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They are also the only things that have kept us from another major conflict. I'm not going to go in Turtledove mode and imagine a world without the technology for nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't be so certain of this. After 1950, the integration of Europe had a major pacifying effect and there's little evidence that the USSR would have tried to invade Western Europe. As for other regions in the world, they weren't exempt of large-scale conflict - you're limiting yourself to the wars in which the United States directly intervened, but if you look at Congo for example, or the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's, the potential for major flareups hasn't been mitigated by the existence of nuclear weapons. I'd say that globalization - not simply wrt trade, but everything involving the UN and the dawn of the information age - has had a major effect as well on pacifying the relations between the most powerful countries, IE the US, Europe, Russia and China. And what you're saying, if it is true, does not change much in regards to how they would have been used. I can't really support blackmail under threat of crimes against humanity, you know what I mean? EDIT: I mean, let me put it this way, CommieGIR. Imagine you're the leader of a country with nuclear weapons. You recieve the information that another country has launched nukes at you and your civilian population (and possibly others). Would it really be moral to retaliate? Wouldn't it be as much a crime against humanity? MAD only works if both actors are immoral. It's pretty grim. CommieGIR posted:We spent nearly 50 years itching for a war with the USSR that never came thanks to MAD. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:EDIT: I mean, let me put it this way, CommieGIR. Imagine you're the leader of a country with nuclear weapons. You recieve the information that another country has launched nukes at you and your civilian population (and possibly others). Would it really be moral to retaliate? Wouldn't it be as much a crime against humanity? Even without MAD it's pretty grim. Let's say you're the same leader of a country, and the other country has threatened to launch nuclear weapons against you unless you unconditionally surrender, and your government has a secret mind-read device that allows you to know with certainty that the other guy is absolutely sincere in his threat. If you launch a first strike, even if you only restrict yourself to purely military targets, you will still kill many civilians. Your position is basically that a sufficiently immoral (or insane) state with nuclear weapons should be allowed to take the world hostage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And what you're saying, if it is true, does not change much in regards to how they would have been used. I can't really support blackmail under threat of crimes against humanity, you know what I mean? MAD only works if all countries assume that launching a strike will directly result in your near destruction as well. Yes, MAD is grim. But it does work. Nuclear weapons are grim to begin with, pretending that MAD makes the idea of nuclear war any more or less grim is kinda shifting perspectives. Nobody will use nuclear weapons because they know that it will result in retaliation. Its also why Israel claiming Iran would use nuclear weapons is laughable, because even as crazy as the Iranians are, they know what would happen if a state did such a thing, regardless of the actors who instigate its use. If you do not react, it doesn't matter how moral or immoral you were when the strike was launched. Really, only you would know that, because the side that doesn't launch will be basically wiped out. Flowers For Algeria posted:Yeah, but would you have itched for that war had there been no MAD? No nukes? We're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight, and we know that the nukes didn't fly, but maybe the risk of a nuclear war wasn't worth their stabilizing effect. I dunno, there's no way of knowing what would have happened otherwise. No MAD and No Nukes, we probably would've seen World War 3 already. When the Soviet Union collapsed, we got enough info to know that the Soviets had plans for invasions, but never carried them out due to fears of nuclear war. Of course MAD is grim. That's the whole point. MAD assumes that both sides realize the outlook is so grim that nuclear war is not worth the risk. feedmegin posted:Well, it did gave the Soviets more time to react in the event of a war; same reason the US was nervous about IRBMs in Cuba, when they're that close instead of going halfway round the globe, and in a period before nuclear-armed subs are all over the place, you run more risk of having all your nukes blown up before you can launch them. IRBMs were never a risk to US ICBMs. Most of the major ICBM squadrons were well out of range of Cuba in the upper Northwestern part of the US. There were some Atlas squadrons in the South, but not in such a number to make IRBMs a risk to the US capability. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Even without MAD it's pretty grim. Let's say you're the same leader of a country, and the other country has threatened to launch nuclear weapons against you unless you unconditionally surrender, and your government has a secret mind-read device that allows you to know with certainty that the other guy is absolutely sincere in his threat. If you launch a first strike, even if you only restrict yourself to purely military targets, you will still kill many civilians. Your position is basically that a sufficiently immoral (or insane) state with nuclear weapons should be allowed to take the world hostage. Would I have to use nukes in this first strike ? Striking military targets doesn't necessarily require nuclear weapons. In any case, I really have no idea. I question the idea that such a state would exist in the first place. Would even Nazi Germany act like this? (Okay, they probably would.) Would it still be able to take the world hostage? And isn't this rather an argument in favor of total nuclear disarmament and international surveillance to ensure that nuclear weapons don't pop up again? Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Would I have to use nukes in this first strike ? Striking military targets doesn't necessarily require nuclear weapons. Yes. You would. Because the goal of a first strike is to cripple any sort of defensive/responsive force. The US/UK/Europe and the Warsaw Pact/USSR drilled for this continuously during the Cold War. A first strike MUST destroy the ability of the target nation to react in any way, shape or form. Conventional strikes would not do in this case. Flowers For Algeria posted:And isn't this rather an argument in favor of total nuclear disarmament and international surveillance to ensure that nuclear weapons don't pop up again? Its actually more risky to disarm rather than simply limit nuclear weapons. How do you know they've totally disarmed? What prevents them from hiding a select number of weapons for use in a first strike? You are basically having to assume that their word is gold when they say they've totally disarmed. Versus limiting numbers of weapons, where you CAN get some accountability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:MAD only works if both actors are immoral. It's pretty grim. Tbf, after WWII this wasn't just a fair assumption, it had been conclusively proven. CommieGIR posted:If you do not react, it doesn't matter how moral or immoral you were when the strike was launched. Really, only you would know that, because the side that doesn't launch will be basically wiped out. The side that does retaliate will also be wiped out. That's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:The side that does retaliate will also be wiped out. That's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction. Read his question. His question was: In the case of a first strike nuclear attack, why should those being attacked be required to respond. He is arguing the morality of MAD as saying that those attacked should have to weigh the morality of a response versus following MAD doctrine. He is assuming that the side being attack has a moral responsibility NOT to respond. Thus breaking MAD. I am well aware of what MAD means. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
quote:Nobody will use nuclear weapons because they know that it will result in retaliation. Its also why Israel claiming Iran would use nuclear weapons is laughable, because even as crazy as the Iranians are, they know what would happen if a state did such a thing, regardless of the actors who instigate its use. If you do react, what will you have gained? You'd be dead anyway. Is spite a good reason to use nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I really really don't know about this. I wouldn't be so certain that a nuclear strike would result in retaliation, because if MAD fails on one side there is no reason to retaliate, except spite. Which is why I readily believe that if Iran used nukes against Israel, Israel would probably retaliate, but if, say, Great-Britain or Russia used theirs against France, it's far less probable that France would retaliate. In the end it's the decision of one dude. I'm sure everyone in the aggressor nation will thank them for their moral choices. MAD won't fail. We've made very certain of that thanks to MIRV designs and Early Warning Systems. Suggesting that the nation being attacked would have a change of heart in no way stops a nuclear war from happening, only makes sure that one side survives. Flowers For Algeria posted:If you do react, what will you have gained? You'd be dead anyway. Is spite a good reason to use nuclear weapons? You don't get a choice. That isn't how this works. Nobody is going to try a first strike assuming they won't get attacked. MAD makes drat sure that they know they WILL get attacked, and the only thing enabling them to make a strike is assumptions about the effectiveness of their first strike and maybe their ABM solutions. But we've done plenty of testing with ABM, with MIRV setups ABM is basically useless. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Would it still be able to take the world hostage? And isn't this rather an argument in favor of total nuclear disarmament and international surveillance to ensure that nuclear weapons don't pop up again? I think we probably would be better off in a world without nuclear weapons at all. That also means that after everyone's eliminated their nuclear weapons stockpile, you have to be willing to commit to enforcing that nuclear disarmament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Here's why nuclear war doesn't happen: nobody wins. If anybody is fighting in a war it's because they expect to be on the winning side. That's the important part; you only fight in a war because you think you can win somehow. Everybody knows that if a real nuclear war starts it's all over. For everyone. Even if you "win" now all you have is an irradiated, useless rock. And you're probably dying of radiation poisoning. Good for you. Now, one of the reasons that things have cooled off is just absolute necessity. Remember that the 1950's were a time of serious antagonism between the Eastern Bloc and the U.S. and pals. On the homefront there was endless propaganda that communism was The Great Enemy that We Must Stop at All Costs. People were taught to really, really hate communism, Russia, and everything related to them. So of course you ended up with people chomping at the bit to destroy the commie scourge once and for all. I can't help but wonder if the lieutenant's thought was "loving right, a chance to PERSONALLY push the button that ends Russia! I WIN!" without thinking over the ramifications. Maybe thinking he'll be a hero or get a promotion. Granted now we think he's an insane monster. Targeting civilians is not a new thing. Every civilian is a potential war asset and there isn't ever a clear delineation between "civilian" and "soldier." You have of course resistance movements, militias, partisans, and factory workers making all the stuff. It can be hard to sort it out and if you look at human history there are piles of times where entire villages were burned and everybody in them was murdered or entire cities razed because "gently caress you, other nation." Other times cities full of noncombatants were starved to death in sieges. War ain't pretty and being a civilian has never been enough to leave you out of it. Which is why one of the biggest things cooling war glory off is publication. In the past there just wasn't anyway to see the devastation unless you were there. It was easy to glorify war. "We went over there are KICKED THEIR ASSES! OORAH!!! Now we have more land to live on, go us." By the time the settlers get there the bodies are gone, the scorched ruins have decayed a lot, and nature is recovering. But then the modern era hit and we made war far, far worse. Then we started photographing it. This was kept under wraps for a while but eventually spreading the messages became so cheap and easy there was no stopping it. Now everybody knows how god awful war is. Vietnam was the biggest turning point of that and in fact pictures from war photographers coming back were one of the biggest turning points in public opinion on the war. When the desolation, the chemical spraying, and the death ended up in full view of the U.S. citizenry opinion changed fast. Now whenever a conflict breaks out of any kind anywhere the internet fills with pictures, with video, with statements from people whose homes were bombed minutes before they were recorded. We have the world at our finger tips and humanity does ugly, terrible things. Now that people can actually see how terrible war is they're less likely to be able to stomach it and less likely to rattle the sabers and demand blood. It still happens of course and will never stop but war isn't fun and cool anymore. It's easy to dehumanize people you will never see. "5,000 people died in city bombing" as a headline doesn't mean much but when you see a video of a crying woman holding the mangled, lifeless body of her child it sticks with you. Suddenly you realize those people were people and would rather like it if you didn't bomb their city, thank you. Those 5,000 people were somebody's child, somebody's parent, somebody's friend, somebody's lover. Somebody, somewhere cared about each and every one of them and now they're gone. And we see these things are we realize that nuclear war is exponentially, possibly infinitely, worse. Nobody wants it, not even madmen. What good is spreading suffering and fear if there is nobody around to suffer or be afraid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I really really don't know about this. I wouldn't be so certain that a nuclear strike would result in retaliation, because if MAD fails on one side there is no reason to retaliate, except spite. Which is why I readily believe that if Iran used nukes against Israel, Israel would probably retaliate, but if, say, Great-Britain or Russia used theirs against France, it's far less probable that France would retaliate. In the end it's the decision of one dude. Also, a nuclear war doesn't mean everyone in your country is dead. A lot of them will be, and a lot of them will die in the months and years to come, but there will still be many survivors (as an absolute number, not necessarily as a proportion). Retaliation could remove the ability of the aggressor nation to move in and annex what remains of your land and population (which, though a lot of it would be ruined, there would still be some value left there).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
We don't know what Israel's retaliation strategy is, but it's entirely possible that it's way more extensive than many people realize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option quote:In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which the American Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach:[26]
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Here's why nuclear war doesn't happen: nobody wins. If anybody is fighting in a war it's because they expect to be on the winning side. That's the important part; you only fight in a war because you think you can win somehow. Everybody knows that if a real nuclear war starts it's all over. For everyone. Even if you "win" now all you have is an irradiated, useless rock. And you're probably dying of radiation poisoning. Good for you. This is what gets me about Flowers for Algeria's questions: It makes no sense. The entire purpose of MAD is to reassure even the most insane of nuclear armed countries that victory is not possible. Why? Because we KNOW its not possible. Even the most ardent of US and USSR Generals was well aware that nuclear war would be a null, no victory, only suffering and defeat. Most US and USSR Bomber crews were told that once their loads were dropped, there would probably not be a base or even an airport to return to. Gail Wynand posted:We don't know what Israel's retaliation strategy is, but it's entirely possible that it's way more extensive than many people realize: Yeah, the IDF will take everyone with them, or so goes the rumor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:We don't know what Israel's retaliation strategy is, but it's entirely possible that it's way more extensive than many people realize: I'm not sure how reliable the words of a handful of weirdoes are regarding Israel's second strike doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Surely saying nuclear weapons are on balance a good thing because they've prevented major conflict involves tacitly assuming they will, indeed, never be used? I think talking about hindsight on a topic like this is possibly a little premature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Read his question. His question was: In the case of a first strike nuclear attack, why should those being attacked be required to respond. He is arguing the morality of MAD as saying that those attacked should have to weigh the morality of a response versus following MAD doctrine. He is assuming that the side being attack has a moral responsibility NOT to respond. Thus breaking MAD. The statement you made that I quoted implied that being wiped out would follow as a result of breaking MAD by not retaliating (even if that's not what you meant). I think you have it backwards though. The nation which breaks the MAD convention is the one which launches an attack, because to do so is insane (because it invites the total destruction of the attacker's nation). If a victim nation then chooses not to retaliate, you can indeed say they've broken MAD but at that point launching or not launching doesn't matter from a defence perspective, as they're already dead. The issue then becomes, do we save half the world and die ourselves, or take everyone else with us? Important to this question is the very real issue that the attack may not have been authorised. Whether it's a Strangelove scenario, or a mad leader who does authorise the strike through "proper" channels but nevertheless does not represent the will of his citizens, or just one of those misses that this time fails to nearly miss, you've got to ask if retaliation really makes sense once missiles are already in the air. If you say "yes, of course it does, because we need to show that MAD is true otherwise it will never work in peacetime ever again", consider launching that retaliation strike will render this argument moot, as there will be no one left to engage in MAD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:The statement you made that I quoted implied that being wiped out would follow as a result of breaking MAD by not retaliating (even if that's not what you meant). But no one is going to do that. Because they KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt what will happen if they do. They will get the same response in turn. Its why MAD works. Its why Algeria's question are asinine because it assumes those being attacked will have some sort of change of heart. No, they will simply respond in kind. And we're not talking a Dr. Strangelove scenario, where a single weapon being used results in a full counterstrike. If it became clear that a single rogue agent had launched a handful of weapons against the wishes of the C&C structure (and trust me, the attacking nation would be VERY clear about such an accident), MAD would not be enacted. Its why we keep humans in the chain on nuclear attack functions. Renaissance Robot posted:If you say "yes, of course it does, because we need to show that MAD is true otherwise it will never work in peacetime ever again", consider launching that retaliation strike will render this argument moot, as there will be no one left to engage in MAD. I think you have it backwards. MAD is a preventative and an action plan. MAD works because the end results are already known before it happens, so it doesn't happen. Its why a nuclear war IS folly because everyone knows what will happen, and its no gain for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
The other thing is that it isn't readily apparent who is attacking if the missiles fly. Missiles get pointed at every potential enemy and chances are all the buttons get pressed. The thing with a nuclear war is there isn't any level of tactics or strategy involved. It happens damned fast. You have a matter of minutes to decide so you don't get to deliberate. You make a snap decision and hope its the right one. Now notice that everybody in the world with a nuclear weapon is suddenly in the same situation. Once the missiles leave their silos nobody can be 100% sure where they'll land. Am I the target? Are you? Was that missile an accident or is it heading for something really, really important hoping we'll assume it was an accident? Better hit something ourselves just in case, you know? Then more launches happen, more buttons get pressed. One by one all the bombs go off. There is no way to not be a noncombatant in a nuclear war. Everybody loses, even people that didn't want to fight in the first place. There is neither neutrality nor victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The other thing is that it isn't readily apparent who is attacking if the missiles fly. Missiles get pointed at every potential enemy and chances are all the buttons get pressed. The thing with a nuclear war is there isn't any level of tactics or strategy involved. It happens damned fast. You have a matter of minutes to decide so you don't get to deliberate. You make a snap decision and hope its the right one. This is also why civilian space launches have to be planned well in advance, to prevent nations from jumping the gun and assuming a strike is in action
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not sure how reliable the words of a handful of weirdoes are regarding Israel's second strike doctrine. If Israel is in a second strike situation, the country is already gone. It's not like the US or Russia where nuclear war is arguably survivable. In that kind of situation a final reckoning with the perceived enemies of the Jewish people would be very tempting...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I think we probably would be better off in a world without nuclear weapons at all. That also means that after everyone's eliminated their nuclear weapons stockpile, you have to be willing to commit to enforcing that nuclear disarmament. CommieGIR posted:You don't get a choice. That isn't how this works. Nobody is going to try a first strike assuming they won't get attacked. MAD makes drat sure that they know they WILL get attacked, and the only thing enabling them to make a strike is assumptions about the effectiveness of their first strike and maybe their ABM solutions. CommieGIR posted:This is what gets me about Flowers for Algeria's questions: It makes no sense. The entire purpose of MAD is to reassure even the most insane of nuclear armed countries that victory is not possible. I think my question does make sense because it is a fundamentally moral question, not a practical one. And states are as moral as their leaders are - and their leaders are human beings whom I assume would balk at the idea of inflicting massive casualties to an innocent civilian population for no other reason than "because that is how MAD works". I think my question is, "what if MAD fails?" The answer is nuclear war, to be sure, but wouldn't a one-sided nuclear war be preferrable to a two-sided one? I'm not in Kennedy's head, of course. But I can't help but think that one of the reasons why he did all he could to avoid escalation in Cuba was not only to protect the population of the United States, but also because he knew that by attacking or retaliating against the USSR, he would be a mass-murderer far worse than Hitler himself. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:The term "Samson option" was coined by Moshe Dayan and the author of that article is a prominent neocon. You're in denial if you don't think, say, Bennet or Lieberman have similar opinions. Its also why Israel is very vague on their arsenal. They have them, we know that, but we don't know in what number. We know they have ICBMs, and we know they have devices. Why? Because we taught them how to make them. Flowers For Algeria posted:I'm probably being naïve, but ensuring that one side survives is still a good thing. That the people in the aggressor nation would be happy about it is a good thing in itself! That's why I'm in favor of unilateral disarmament. Look, I know why you are saying it, and yes, it loving sucks. But the only way to assure no one uses nuclear weapons is to assume that any use of nuclear weapons would result in a worldwide holocaust. It sucks. I know. But that's the only reason MAD works. Unilateral disarmament likely would not work. Flowers For Algeria posted:...and yet some of these generals were in favor of it - over Cuba, for example, or in Korea/China. And nuclear war could have happened because of human and technical mistakes! We know it almost did several times. Imagine an accidental strike - in this context MAD would only make things worse. Kennedy was not going to launch a first strike. That was never in the cards. He, in fact, directly said that Cuba launching a strike would count as a first strike for the USSR explicitly for placing the blame (and the outcome) on their heads, not ours. Had Cuba launched a nuclear weapon, Kennedy would've likely authorized a full strike. Not a first strike. A Responsive strike. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not sure how reliable the words of a handful of weirdoes are regarding Israel's second strike doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its also why Israel is very vague on their arsenal. They have them, we know that, but we don't know in what number. We know they have ICBMs, and we know they have devices. Why? Because we taught them how to make them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Not sure why their subs would be in the Atlantic if Israel was fighting an existential war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Not sure why their subs would be in the Atlantic if Israel was fighting an existential war. You don't need to be in the Atlantic to nuke Mecca and Arab/European capitals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:You don't need to be in the Atlantic to nuke Mecca and Arab/European capitals. Depends on their range and which capitals we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Depends on their range and which capitals we're talking about. True but subs can move around to get a firing position..and they can stay in the Med and still be capable of hitting plenty of targets based on open source info on their capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Not sure why their subs would be in the Atlantic if Israel was fighting an existential war. I think the point is to ignite a global thermonuclear exchange as a final "gently caress you" to the world, so spitefully nuking the eastern seaboard of the US in the event of Israeli downfall gives the USA a big stake in Israel's survival.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think the point is to ignite a global thermonuclear exchange as a final "gently caress you" to the world, so spitefully nuking the eastern seaboard of the US in the event of Israeli downfall gives the USA a big stake in Israel's survival. Except that is now why we support them. We support them because.... ...End times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Has anyone done any thinking on what happens if there is a very small use of nuclear weapons? Now I know you're going to say that there's no such thing as limited nuclear war and so on but I am talking about a scenario where, for instance, a country being invaded by a larger force sets off a nuclear bomb while that military is moving through a particular area, or where a bomb is used to take out a central base or fortress or, hell, even to gently caress up a capital city as your troops roll in to occupy whatever border province you want. What happens then? This scenario seems a lot more likely to me than "someone sneezes, suddenly massive thermonuclear war kills everyone and the living envy the dead"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I am. I'd be in favor of the most severe enforcement, with international cooperation to oversee all the processes related to refining, enriching, and using fissile material. A huge breach of sovereignty to be sure, but I don't care about that. So you're actually fine with starting wars. Doesn't matter anyway. The nation most capable of infringing everyone else's sovereignty would have to be OK with their own decision-making being taken away from them on this issue, and how would you ever force that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 05:28
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So you're actually fine with starting wars. Doesn't matter anyway. The nation most capable of infringing everyone else's sovereignty would have to be OK with their own decision-making being taken away from them on this issue, and how would you ever force that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think the point is to ignite a global thermonuclear exchange as a final "gently caress you" to the world, so spitefully nuking the eastern seaboard of the US in the event of Israeli downfall gives the USA a big stake in Israel's survival. Yes, if I were an Israeli submarine captain I'd choose to sail halfway across the planet to nuke my main ally when my homeland was under attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yes, if I were an Israeli submarine captain I'd choose to sail halfway across the planet to nuke my main ally when my homeland was under attack. Too bad, you are on routine patrol in the middle of nowhere and can't get home before said home ceases to exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Never mind Okinawa, America had ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, the latter of which literally shared a border with the USSR. That's why the USSR wanted its own in Cuba, to even things up. Yeah and it's about the same distance from Anatolia to Moscow as it is from Cuba to DC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Look, I know why you are saying it, and yes, it loving sucks. But the only way to assure no one uses nuclear weapons is to assume that any use of nuclear weapons would result in a worldwide holocaust. In the scenario presented though: an aggressor nation launching a first strike, the deterrent effect of MAD has already obviously failed, so there's no reason to launch a retaliatory strike. Obviously for MAD doctrine to work you have to say you'd be willing to launch, but if you actually had the missiles coming at you I can't see an argument for going through with it and killing tens of millions of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
McDowell posted:http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=a72674880d83e3c49b6699e50a55db77 This shows you the most recent detonations that people have chosen. Everyone is doing Iran and Iraq  Well gently caress that, I'm dropping it on myself
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:54
|
|
