Nuclear Weapons & Deterrent - POLITICS

Status
Not open for further replies.

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
17,232
Reaction score
8,819
Since there is a dire need for this thread, if only to keep the other one on topic, I've created this one.
 
It is not, in my opinion, possible to divorce nuclear weapons from the politics that surround them. Be it their development, their employment or the rationale as to their existence. To attempt to, causes human involvement to cease. Essentially, you are starting from a pre-determined position - that nuclear weapons must exist and as the world knows, that cannot happen. Even in the USA, Russia and the UK and France, there are political movements to end the use of nuclear weapons.
 
Kadija_Man said:
It is not, in my opinion, possible to divorce nuclear weapons from the politics that surround them. Be it their development, their employment or the rationale as to their existence. To attempt to, causes human involvement to cease. Essentially, you are starting from a pre-determined position - that nuclear weapons must exist and as the world knows, that cannot happen. Even in the USA, Russia and the UK and France, there are political movements to end the use of nuclear weapons.

And everybody is, "you first", knowing they'll have the advantage if the other guy is dumb enough to unilaterally disarm. This is why it will never happen.
 
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
I am not looking to get political on this point.

Of course you are. But it's ok to be political. As in any reasonable discussion, expect a response to the points you made.

kaiserd said:
While I personally advocate the nuclear deterrent it critics and sceptics have a point in relation to quality and mindset of the individual who ultimately gets to make the decision to use/ not use it. It’s the one part of the deterrent “system” most wrapped up with human nature and strengths and weaknesses of the one individual.

I take it that "critics and skeptics" don't believe the US representative democracy is in a good position to ensure the "Quality" and understand the "Mindset" of the individual elected. Perhaps the "critics and skeptics" have proposed a different model about which you might elucidate?

It sounds like you're saying that if "critics and skeptics" (this doesn't include you, of course) don't like the outcome of the election then it is OK to make inflammatory statements and play into the fear, uncertainty and doubt of the "critics and skeptics" voting bloc. Especially since there is an election next year.

I get this is "political hardball", but these statements shouldn't be passed it off as legitimate concern. "Critics and skeptics" of the "critics and skeptics" could characterize your reasoning as passive aggressive.


kaiserd said:
So, for example some people would have potentially justifiable concerns about one politician too readily using the deterrent while in an another scenario other people would have potentially justifiable concerns about another politician being too reticent to use the deterrent.

This doesn't make any sense. Too readily "using" what deterrent? Nuclear weapons haven't been used since WWII.

kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.

You're inferring that "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" have voiced concern about "the current US President" doing...what? Since this is a thread about nuclear weapons we'll assume you mean using nuclear weapons.

So that we're on the same page, to which "much of the US's closest friends and allies" are you referring?

I’m not totally convinced on the need for this room and the repeated behavior seen in that room by some contributors would be equally unacceptable here.

I also agree with Kajida Man that nuclear weapons are inherently “political” (I don’t mean party-political in that sense). They don’t exist in a vacuum and discussing them as though they do is very artificial.

But I felt it only fair to respond Neil’s comments in a spirit of actual discussion and exchange of ideas and perspectives.

1.
When I said I wasn’t looking to get political I meant it; as per I meant not getting into the partisan party politics area. I mentioned the current US President but I far less “political” than the contributor I was quoting and I was mentioning the current POTAS in a particular context (see 2).

2.
I need to stress I am not American, I don’t consume US news of various ilks etc.
I am not coming from that perspective .
The point I was trying to make was not some kind of hidden dig at the current US President it the people or the electoral system that elected him (though in the name of transparency I should say I’m not his biggest fan).
My point is that nuclear powers spend billions on their nuclear arsenals, survivable command and control systems, early warning systems etc. and it all ends up being extremely dependent on the personality, pros and cons of one individual whose only qualification is that they were politically successful enough to get to that position. I’m not saying other alternatives are necessarily better, merely that this does represent a significant potential weakness in any countries deterrence “system”.

3.
Re: concerns about particular political leaders being potentially too willing or too reticent to use a nuclear deterrent again I wasn’t coming from a US or Trump-centric perspective.
Leaving aside partisan party politics there have been concerns about a number of US Presidents being potentially to use the deterrent too readily based on comments they had made (Nixon and Reagan come to mind); thankfully that didn’t prove to be the case.
I was also thinking of now non-US examples; in the recent UK election the 2nd largest party was lead by an politician with a long track record of supporting nuclear disarmament and made comments indicating he could not foresee circumstances in which he would use the UK deterrent (his position is now a bit more nuanced than that, I’m referring to this as an example, not too tease out his precise position). Similar there have been potential and actual French presidents with at least a history of ambivalence to the French nuclear deterrent (as did Tony Blair before he became UK Prime Minister).
Again this points to a potential weakness of a deterrent system; leaving aside issues of character a politician may come to power with policies that undermine it either by leaving all rival powers on a hair trigger or leaving such powers convinced they’d never use it.

4.
Again I point to my non-US perspective (Republic of Ireland).
My friends, my family, work colleagues (many from different countries, political perspectives etc.) had and have concerns arising from President Trumps public comments (tone and content) re: nuclear weapons, especially re: North Korea. We are not all stooges of a liberal US media or political opponents trying to undermine President Trump. These are real legitimate and widely shared concerns (for example shared by UK media across political perspectives). We all hope our concern proves to be misplaced, but please don’t tell us we are pretending to be concerned.
 
kaiserd said:
I’m not totally convinced on the need for this room and the repeated behavior seen in that room by some contributors would be equally unacceptable here.

Those who wouldn't seek out political discussions won't be here (myself included) so feel free to discuss to your heart's content. The whole point of this thread is to keep from blowing up the other thread every time politics comes up, and if political posts get posted in the other thread, the poster will be directed to this thread. Simple enough.


kaiserd said:
I also agree with Kajida Man that nuclear weapons are inherently “political” (I don’t mean party-political in that sense). They don’t exist in a vacuum and discussing them as though they do is very artificial.

Then you should love the idea of this thread as those "artificial" limitations will not be here.
 
sferrin said:
kaiserd said:
I’m not totally convinced on the need for this room and the repeated behavior seen in that room by some contributors would be equally unacceptable here.

Those who wouldn't seek out political discussions won't be here (myself included) so feel free to discuss to your heart's content. The whole point of this thread is to keep from blowing up the other thread every time politics comes up, and if political posts get posted in the other thread, the poster will be directed to this thread. Simple enough.


kaiserd said:
I also agree with Kajida Man that nuclear weapons are inherently “political” (I don’t mean party-political in that sense). They don’t exist in a vacuum and discussing them as though they do is very artificial.

Then you should love the idea of this thread as those "artificial" limitations will not be here.

To be accurate you repeatedly blew up that other thread with your own highly political posts and intolerance of anyone with a different view. How many of your comments were amended or deleted on this basis?
I am not looking to have an argument but please do not look to inaccurately re-write history and mislead other contributors.
 
kaiserd said:
...

But I felt it only fair to respond Neil’s comments in a spirit of actual discussion and exchange of ideas and perspectives.

1.
When I said I wasn’t looking to get political I meant it; as per I meant not getting into the partisan party politics area. I mentioned the current US President but I far less “political” than the contributor I was quoting and I was mentioning the current POTAS in a particular context (see 2).

2.
I need to stress I am not American, I don’t consume US news of various ilks etc.
I am not coming from that perspective .
The point I was trying to make was not some kind of hidden dig at the current US President it the people or the electoral system that elected him (though in the name of transparency I should say I’m not his biggest fan).
My point is that nuclear powers spend billions on their nuclear arsenals, survivable command and control systems, early warning systems etc. and it all ends up being extremely dependent on the personality, pros and cons of one individual whose only qualification is that they were politically successful enough to get to that position. I’m not saying other alternatives are necessarily better, merely that this does represent a significant potential weakness in any countries deterrence “system”.

Yes, and I'll go a little deeper than my original comment and state that the US Constitution was crafted with tyrannical leaders in mind. Claiming the Republic of Ireland one would expect you can appreciate this consideration.

Part of the value of the election process and the Electoral College is the opportunity to "change your mind" up until the last minute. After which there are many ways to "remove" someone that is not capable of minding the store. Lastly, the electorate has the right to keep and bear arms in the event that and armed uprising is necessary.

You made mention of the quality and mindset of the President of the United States. I'll counter that it has been the quality and mindset of the Presidents of the United States that has allowed the Republic of Ireland to reap the benefits of post WWII stability.

Have faith.


kaiserd said:
3.
Re: concerns about particular political leaders being potentially too willing or too reticent to use a nuclear deterrent again I wasn’t coming from a US or Trump-centric perspective.
Leaving aside partisan party politics there have been concerns about a number of US Presidents being potentially to use the deterrent too readily based on comments they had made (Nixon and Reagan come to mind); thankfully that didn’t prove to be the case.
I was also thinking of now non-US examples; in the recent UK election the 2nd largest party was lead by an politician with a long track record of supporting nuclear disarmament and made comments indicating he could not foresee circumstances in which he would use the UK deterrent (his position is now a bit more nuanced than that, I’m referring to this as an example, not too tease out his precise position). Similar there have been potential and actual French presidents with at least a history of ambivalence to the French nuclear deterrent (as did Tony Blair before he became UK Prime Minister).
Again this points to a potential weakness of a deterrent system; leaving aside issues of character a politician may come to power with policies that undermine it either by leaving all rival powers on a hair trigger or leaving such powers convinced they’d never use it.

No. The issue is not the character of the individual political leader. The issue is the character of the nation that elects that particular leader - as power comes from the people.

Europe has not felt threatened, hence it has taken little action to defend itself. Perhaps that is because the US carries a significant burden in ensuring both nuclear and conventional military deterrent, perhaps not. Germany and France, with a combined GDP of ~6T, spend less than $100B on defense. The UK spends ~$50B

It's much more popular to advocate 30 action days and free health care. You would know more about these body politic than me.

kaiserd said:
4.
Again I point to my non-US perspective (Republic of Ireland).
My friends, my family, work colleagues (many from different countries, political perspectives etc.) had and have concerns arising from President Trumps public comments (tone and content) re: nuclear weapons, especially re: North Korea. We are not all stooges of a liberal US media or political opponents trying to undermine President Trump. These are real legitimate and widely shared concerns (for example shared by UK media across political perspectives). We all hope our concern proves to be misplaced, but please don’t tell us we are pretending to be concerned.

But that's not what you wrote K. What you wrote was

kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.


I take it you are rolling back that comment as an overreach.

I'm not saying that you're "pretending to be concerned." What I'm saying is that you've conflated the two by presenting you and your co-workers opinions (and that of some UK press) for "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies."

---

I'd be very surprised if the US changed its tack and decided to accept North Korea with ICBM's. With that being said, I'd like to see the US continue to increase pressure as it has done - UN, economic, rhetorical.

Also like to see the US/ASEAN/UN begin to plan for both the inclusion of the DPRK into world economy, should they choose the correct path, and large scale HA/DR missions should they choose the incorrect path.
 
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.


I take it you are rolling back that comment as an overreach.
I really don't think he ought to.
Far be it from me to voice an opinion on the merits of US citizens voting for Mr Trump, I do have views on Mr Trump's popularity outside the USA. Kenyans, Tanzanians, Nigerians, citizens of the Philippines and Russians like him. <edit> as well as the Iraeli and the Vietnamese</edit>
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/17/9-charts-on-how-the-world-sees-trump/
That's July's status. I don't think the situation has changed much.
 

Attachments

  • FT_17.07.17_U.S.-Image_PresRatingMap.png
    FT_17.07.17_U.S.-Image_PresRatingMap.png
    66.9 KB · Views: 113
Arjen said:
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.


I take it you are rolling back that comment as an overreach.
I really don't think he ought to.
Far be it from me to voice an opinion on the merits of US citizens voting for Mr Trump, I do have views on Mr Trump's popularity outside the USA. Kenyans, Tanzanians, Nigerians, citizens of the Philippines and Russians like him. <edit> as well as the Iraeli and the Vietnamese</edit>
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/17/9-charts-on-how-the-world-sees-trump/
That's July's status. I don't think the situation has changed much.

Thanks Arjen, I’d read articles on these types of world surveys re: views on Trump, saves me having to try to find them again.
 
kaiserd said:
Arjen said:
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.


I take it you are rolling back that comment as an overreach.
I really don't think he ought to.
Far be it from me to voice an opinion on the merits of US citizens voting for Mr Trump, I do have views on Mr Trump's popularity outside the USA. Kenyans, Tanzanians, Nigerians, citizens of the Philippines and Russians like him. <edit> as well as the Iraeli and the Vietnamese</edit>
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/17/9-charts-on-how-the-world-sees-trump/
That's July's status. I don't think the situation has changed much.

Thanks Arjen, I’d read articles on these types of world surveys re: views on Trump, saves me having to try to find them again.

??? Ok - If you reread the thread, I've made my point and Arjen is cementing it for me.

N
 
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.
 
The 2016 presidential campaign was probably the first in a generation to deal with new US nuclear weapons.

As a consequence, you have an entire generation of journalist and media types
(to say nothing of members of Congress) who are totally unaccustomed to covering
or reasoning about the issue.

It's not surprising that some of the coverage has been hyperbolic and apocalyptic particularly for a
candidate and now President with an unconventional background and unorthodox style.

But the reality is that domestic public opinion on new nukes has had very little impact
beyond delaying production (ERW) or changing deployment (MX in silos)
and international opinion has had virtually no impact.

I don't recall the public being particularly passionate one way or the other about the
Reliable Replacement Warhead. And even with then Congressional and Presidential
opposition it lives on (in part) in the interoperable warhead effort.
 
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
...

But I felt it only fair to respond Neil’s comments in a spirit of actual discussion and exchange of ideas and perspectives.

1.
When I said I wasn’t looking to get political I meant it; as per I meant not getting into the partisan party politics area. I mentioned the current US President but I far less “political” than the contributor I was quoting and I was mentioning the current POTAS in a particular context (see 2).

2.
I need to stress I am not American, I don’t consume US news of various ilks etc.
I am not coming from that perspective .
The point I was trying to make was not some kind of hidden dig at the current US President it the people or the electoral system that elected him (though in the name of transparency I should say I’m not his biggest fan).
My point is that nuclear powers spend billions on their nuclear arsenals, survivable command and control systems, early warning systems etc. and it all ends up being extremely dependent on the personality, pros and cons of one individual whose only qualification is that they were politically successful enough to get to that position. I’m not saying other alternatives are necessarily better, merely that this does represent a significant potential weakness in any countries deterrence “system”.

Yes, and I'll go a little deeper than my original comment and state that the US Constitution was crafted with tyrannical leaders in mind. Claiming the Republic of Ireland one would expect you can appreciate this consideration.

Part of the value of the election process and the Electoral College is the opportunity to "change your mind" up until the last minute. After which there are many ways to "remove" someone that is not capable of minding the store. Lastly, the electorate has the right to keep and bear arms in the event that and armed uprising is necessary.

You made mention of the quality and mindset of the President of the United States. I'll counter that it has been the quality and mindset of the Presidents of the United States that has allowed the Republic of Ireland to reap the benefits of post WWII stability.

Have faith.


kaiserd said:
3.
Re: concerns about particular political leaders being potentially too willing or too reticent to use a nuclear deterrent again I wasn’t coming from a US or Trump-centric perspective.
Leaving aside partisan party politics there have been concerns about a number of US Presidents being potentially to use the deterrent too readily based on comments they had made (Nixon and Reagan come to mind); thankfully that didn’t prove to be the case.
I was also thinking of now non-US examples; in the recent UK election the 2nd largest party was lead by an politician with a long track record of supporting nuclear disarmament and made comments indicating he could not foresee circumstances in which he would use the UK deterrent (his position is now a bit more nuanced than that, I’m referring to this as an example, not too tease out his precise position). Similar there have been potential and actual French presidents with at least a history of ambivalence to the French nuclear deterrent (as did Tony Blair before he became UK Prime Minister).
Again this points to a potential weakness of a deterrent system; leaving aside issues of character a politician may come to power with policies that undermine it either by leaving all rival powers on a hair trigger or leaving such powers convinced they’d never use it.

No. The issue is not the character of the individual political leader. The issue is the character of the nation that elects that particular leader - as power comes from the people.

Europe has not felt threatened, hence it has taken little action to defend itself. Perhaps that is because the US carries a significant burden in ensuring both nuclear and conventional military deterrent, perhaps not. Germany and France, with a combined GDP of ~6T, spend less than $100B on defense. The UK spends ~$50B

It's much more popular to advocate 30 action days and free health care. You would know more about these body politic than me.

kaiserd said:
4.
Again I point to my non-US perspective (Republic of Ireland).
My friends, my family, work colleagues (many from different countries, political perspectives etc.) had and have concerns arising from President Trumps public comments (tone and content) re: nuclear weapons, especially re: North Korea. We are not all stooges of a liberal US media or political opponents trying to undermine President Trump. These are real legitimate and widely shared concerns (for example shared by UK media across political perspectives). We all hope our concern proves to be misplaced, but please don’t tell us we are pretending to be concerned.

But that's not what you wrote K. What you wrote was

kaiserd said:
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.


I take it you are rolling back that comment as an overreach.

I'm not saying that you're "pretending to be concerned." What I'm saying is that you've conflated the two by presenting you and your co-workers opinions (and that of some UK press) for "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies."

---

I'd be very surprised if the US changed its tack and decided to accept North Korea with ICBM's. With that being said, I'd like to see the US continue to increase pressure as it has done - UN, economic, rhetorical.

Also like to see the US/ASEAN/UN begin to plan for both the inclusion of the DPRK into world economy, should they choose the correct path, and large scale HA/DR missions should they choose the incorrect path.

Re: above;

Re: point 2 above:
I wasn’t having a go at the US Constitution or the US electoral system.
Neither are perfect but their certainly better than most.
But the reality is that neither particularly prepare a presidential candidate for controlling the nuclear deterrent and at best only apply limited control to ensure they are suitable from a character/ personality point of view to control the nuclear deterrent. The picture is similar in the likes of UK and France.
And once elected there are few if any formal controls on the President/ Prime Minister using their nuclear deterrent; there is a lot of responsibility on the military chain not too obey potentially unreasonable/ “crazy” orders.

Re: point 3 above:
With all respect I don’t understand your point.
I was talking about the character of the political leader with the ability to wield the nuclear deterrent, not the character of the (presumably collective?) electorate.
That a quite a nebulous concept... I think that’s what your talking about, and you go on to make a number of unrelated points......

Re: point 4 above:

I was trying give concrete relatable examples. Arjen has helpfully pulled other examples of “world” views on/ confidence in President Trump. I would also occasionally familiarize myself with various news sources around Europe, Canada, Australia etc. My own unscientific sample generally only has the far fringe of one of the political poles expressing anything like confidence in him, with widely held concerns on his character and decision making, especially re: nuclear weapons.
Again my point is not to bash the current President but to correct the contention that such concerns were only being dishonestly invented by Democratic politicians trying to deny the President legitimacy.
That simply isn’t true.

You then go off the make more relatively unconnected points (widely held concerns re: the tone & content Presidents comments re: North Korea aren’t really addressed by general comments on what you’d like to be done re: North Korea....)
 
Arjen said:
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.

You would have thought that Trump's election and Brexit would have destroyed faith in polling
especially since polling of this nature is designed to shape public opinion rather than measure it.

In any event, trying to infer or project a President's willigness or reticence to use nuclear weapons
from public statements amounts to amateur psychology and is not particularly useful given that
a number of US declaratory policies were not in fact operational policies.
 
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?
 
Arjen said:
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.

That's not what K stated. This isn't a thread about who likes or even disapproves of the US President. I'm not sure why you felt it was relevant to the discussion.

Your post cemented my point because it doesn't support K's argument that "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies" are concerned that President Trump will use nuclear weapons.

It's a long way from "I don't agree and think his policies on border walls, climate change and Iran are dangerous" to I'm concerned he will use nuclear weapons. To conflate the two, and pass of the views of coworkers as "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" is misleading and perhaps, if intentional, mendacious propaganda.
 
kaiserd said:
Re: point 2 above:
I wasn’t having a go at the US Constitution or the US electoral system.
Neither are perfect but their certainly better than most.
But the reality is that neither particularly prepare a presidential candidate for controlling the nuclear deterrent and at best only apply limited control to ensure they are suitable from a character/ personality point of view to control the nuclear deterrent. The picture is similar in the likes of UK and France.
And once elected there are few if any formal controls on the President/ Prime Minister using their nuclear deterrent; there is a lot of responsibility on the military chain not too obey potentially unreasonable/ “crazy” orders.

K - You live in a neutral country. Ireland even triple locks peacekeeping missions. You have no practical experience voting for a leader that can unilaterally send troops to die; our brothers, our sisters, our parents, ourselves.

Since you live in the type of country you do, I can see how having leaders to make these decisions would be unsettling for you. It's unsettling for US citizens as well. It's why the electorate, and the electoral process, matters so much.

If you can't understand that, then that's ok. And yes, the US demands responsibility in its elected officials and military leaders.

kaiserd said:
Re: point 3 above:
With all respect I don’t understand your point.
I was talking about the character of the political leader with the ability to wield the nuclear deterrent, not the character of the (presumably collective?) electorate.
That a quite a nebulous concept... I think that’s what your talking about, and you go on to make a number of unrelated points......

K - as I stated above, the electorate in the US has experience voting for a President that sends people to die. It's why you're having trouble grasping the concept that the electorate carries this level of responsibility for whom they elect. That's not your experience.

In the US, it's up to the electorate to ensure who is entrusted with this level of responsibility. In Ireland, literally no one has this responsibility.

The points are related. It's about responsibility for one's own welfare and safety. It's not wise to vote for someone who is a warmonger, or has an unmanageable temper, if you're concerned they're going to send you to war.


kaiserd said:
Re: point 4 above:

I was trying give concrete relatable examples. Arjen has helpfully pulled other examples of “world” views on/ confidence in President Trump. I would also occasionally familiarize myself with various news sources around Europe, Canada, Australia etc. My own unscientific sample generally only has the far fringe of one of the political poles expressing anything like confidence in him, with widely held concerns on his character and decision making, especially re: nuclear weapons.
Again my point is not to bash the current President but to correct the contention that such concerns were only being dishonestly invented by Democratic politicians trying to deny the President legitimacy.
That simply isn’t true.

You then go off the make more relatively unconnected points (widely held concerns re: the tone & content Presidents comments re: North Korea aren’t really addressed by general comments on what you’d like to be done re: North Korea....)

Listen K, if you don't like the US President, it doesn't bother me. If you want to proclaim folks don't have confidence in him, it doesn't bother me. Non US citizens don't like his policies, it doesn't bother me. NATO thinks the US won't protect them since they refuse to meet their own fiscal target of 2% of GDP toward their own defense, it doesn't bother me.

You made a false statement that "much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share" a concern that the US President is going to launch nuclear missiles and I called you on it. It was a poor point to contend because it cannot be supported.

But you're still attempting to support it by conflating you're coworkers views, world views on people's confidence or how much they like the US Presidents policies. None of which make any difference to your original contention. That contention was false. As I've stated to Arjen, it's a long way from "I think your immigration policies are dangerous" to I'm concerned your going to launch nuclear weapons.

I get it. What you wrote is not what you meant. So next time write what you mean and I won't have a reason to call you on it.

Time to move on. I have a feeling there will be plenty of other topics we can argue.

---

I appreciate that we had a chance to discuss this. It gave me a reason to learn more about Ireland. Even watched the movie the Siege of Jadotville - good flick. Those poor buggers had the devil to pay.
 
The NATO 2%& spending target does not exist. Nobody who ever agreed to it had any authority to commit to any such thing. It's like when the hairdressers of your city have a congress and agree that from now on every inhabitant of the city has to spend 2% of his or her money on hairstyling. Nobody needs to give a shit about what they say. The ministers of defence and heads of government who made that 'commitment' have no budget authority; that one is vested in the legislative branch and the legislative branches in almost all NATO countries committed again and again to NOT spend 2% in their budget plans.

NATO members don't have reason to doubt that the U.S. is a reliable defensive ally because of spending. They have reason to doubt so because Trump has publicly disrespected NATO, refused to confirm that the US is a reliable ally, is cuddling with Putin, has demonstrated zero leadership or decisionmaking skills and Putin is rumoured to be able to blackmail Trump.


Now specifically about nukes: I think it fits in the topic to quote my stance on North Korean nukes as previously written on my blog:

Both Iran and North Korea recently gained attention for testing ballistic missiles. Both events were treated as a crisis by the international Western media, and Drumpf took severe criticism for his display of lacking professionalism when read presumably confidential reports in full view of clearly unauthorised personnel. Well, at least we saw him reading more than 140 characters in one sitting for once. I actually found that to be rather reassuring.

The whole exasperation is in my opinion entirely misplaced, regardless of what the UNSC thought about it.

Western countries and Russia are testing nuclear warhead-capable missiles often and we don't presume that anyone else should feel threatened. The United States have thousands of nuclear warheads, Iran has none and would need many years to build a weak one - which remains practically impossible as long as the IAEA keeps inspecting it finding no nuclear arms program (Iran does follow its NPT obligations, while the U.S. doesn't) and the recent treaty on the issue remains in force (which Drumpf doesn't want it to be).

North Korea meanwhile has a few nuclear warheads of low yield (but they're likely very dirty because of their inefficiency), but evidently doesn't use them on any other country.

The entire exasperation about North Korea testing long range ballistic missiles (which could be intercepted by the operational BMD, but maybe wouldn't) is about the scenario of a nuclear warhead reaching Honolulu or even CONUS cities. This is supposed to be scary. That, of course, would also be possible if they launched a simple rocket from a ship four nautical miles off the coast, where - freedom of navigation! - they have the right to cruise anyway.

My advice is to ignore all these issues. Ignore North Korean nukes, ignore Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles.

One hint should have been that North Korea didn't use its nukes so far.

They won't use them, ever. The North Korean regime is a hereditary tyranny with a fig leaf of communist ideology. The first and foremost objective of the entire state is to support and sustain the rule and safety of the leader and his children. Everything else is of much lesser importance (even the lives of uncles and half-brothers).
To use a nuclear warhead all but ensures defeat by a nuclear power, maybe by three of them.
Moreover, even if North Korea was in a conventional war and losing badly, with the leader and his last troops pushed back to the Yalu - North Korea would still not use any nuclear warhead as long as the PRC offers the leader a life in exile. To use a nuclear warhead at that stage would not avert defeat, but it would ensure that the leader would be extradited or assassinated instead of surviving in exile as a filthy rich man.

Nuclear munitions larger than the really small ones (up to 1 kt TNTeq) are almost perfectly unusable post-WW2, at least against targets on land. The powers that have them have no use for them against smaller powers, and face the threat of nuclear retaliation in regard to attacks on other great powers.
A country can threaten to use nukes, but that's about it - it's almost 100% a bluff.

It's thus best to call the bluff by ignoring such "threats", even perceived peripheral threats such as ballistic missile tests. We are almost certainly safe as long as we don't attack them,and even then a use of nukes is unlikely. A military history parallel for this exists in the German non-use of Tabun nerve gas during WW2.

Next time North Korea launches a big ballistic missile congratulate them to their achievement and ask them when they will launch their first geosurveillance satellite that helps the country's agriculture to optimise the use of land for food production. Don't treat it as a national security issue. It isn't one.
One advice in particular to politicians who want to communicate the "strong man" image; being easily scared by harmless missile tests doesn't fit the image you want to project. Cool, dismissive statements on the other hand would do so.

There is a counterpoint that I wrote myself:

I stated several times - including here - that I'm 100% positive that North Korea's little tyrant wouldn't use any nuke against the U.S., its troops or Seoul.
The reasoning is that the entire state of North Korea serves but one purpose at this point; to protect and please the little tyrant and his (direct) line of succession. His death would be guaranteed if he ever used a nuke in anger, even if he fled to the PRC and received asylum there. He'd be killed like UBL sooner or later.

Now there's one most irritating thought; what if Trump in his idiocy managed to shatter the one central and so far absolutely self-evident assumption that's central to the purpose of the nuclear triad? What if he convinced the little tyrant that he'll be killed anyway?

At that point no nukes or thousands of nukes would not make a difference. There would be no deterrence any more.

Idiocracy was not meant to be a instructional video.
 
NeilChapman said:
Arjen said:
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.

That's not what K stated. This isn't a thread about who likes or even disapproves of the US President. I'm not sure why you felt it was relevant to the discussion.

Your post cemented my point because it doesn't support K's argument that "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies" are concerned that President Trump will use nuclear weapons.

It's a long way from "I don't agree and think his policies on border walls, climate change and Iran are dangerous" to I'm concerned he will use nuclear weapons. To conflate the two, and pass of the views of coworkers as "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" is misleading and perhaps, if intentional, mendacious propaganda.

To answer a specific point in your entry above and in another entry below.
I was not being “mendaciously propagandist” and it’s beyond ridiculous (embarrassingly so) to suggest I was. Your need to deny the clear reality of the lack of trust in President Trump (particularly alarming in the nuclear deterrent context) among the majority of people’s and leaderships of the US’s closest allies is illuminating. You may be being miss-served by your choice of news outlets in this regard.
If a President can’t be trusted to use twitter responsibly on what rational basis would we be happy with him controlling nuclear weapons?
 
NeilChapman said:
Arjen said:
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.

That's not what K stated. This isn't a thread about who likes or even disapproves of the US President. I'm not sure why you felt it was relevant to the discussion.

Your post cemented my point because it doesn't support K's argument that "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies" are concerned that President Trump will use nuclear weapons.

It's a long way from "I don't agree and think his policies on border walls, climate change and Iran are dangerous" to I'm concerned he will use nuclear weapons. To conflate the two, and pass of the views of coworkers as "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" is misleading and perhaps, if intentional, mendacious propaganda.
The chart I posted has a subtitle "Confidence in U.S. President Donald Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs"
I apologise for my use of the terms 'like' and 'approval', they detract from the chart's message: the lack of trust in the current president among the USA's miltary allies.
Marauder2048's point: do I trust polls? With some sources, I do, if the difference in percentages of people holding opposing positions runs into multiples of ten - like they did in the last French elections.

I don't think I am conflating anything here. I don't think I am being mendacious.
 
kaiserd said:
NeilChapman said:
Arjen said:
You've lost me there.
I will try to clarify my view. The world map I posted, shows moderate to vehement disapproval of Mr Trump in Canada, Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan, South Korea. That covers most of the USA's military allies. Coupled with approval of Mr Trump in Russia, the picture is an interesting one I find more in line with kaiserd's view than yours.

That's not what K stated. This isn't a thread about who likes or even disapproves of the US President. I'm not sure why you felt it was relevant to the discussion.

Your post cemented my point because it doesn't support K's argument that "much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies" are concerned that President Trump will use nuclear weapons.

It's a long way from "I don't agree and think his policies on border walls, climate change and Iran are dangerous" to I'm concerned he will use nuclear weapons. To conflate the two, and pass of the views of coworkers as "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" is misleading and perhaps, if intentional, mendacious propaganda.

To answer a specific point in your entry above and in another entry below.
I was not being “mendaciously propagandist” and it’s beyond ridiculous (embarrassingly so) to suggest I was.

Like I said, if you intentionally conflated the two. If you didn't, then it was misleading.

Don't play the victim. If you're embarrassed then perhaps you've a reason to be so.

kaiserd said:
Your need to deny the clear reality of the lack of trust in President Trump (particularly alarming in the nuclear deterrent context) among the majority of people’s and leaderships of the US’s closest allies is illuminating. You may be being miss-served by your choice of news outlets in this regard.
If a President can’t be trusted to use twitter responsibly on what rational basis would we be happy with him controlling nuclear weapons?

You're just beating a dead horse, K. I called out your broad, unsupportable statement and now you're continuing to conflate it with something else. Stop already.

The polling clearly did not broach the subject of "concern about the US President launching nuclear weapons". You're making the leap yourself. Now you're equating typing a twitter message with launching nuclear weapons that kill people. Stop already.
 
NeilChapman said:
The polling clearly did not broach the subject of "concern about the US President launching nuclear weapons". You're making the leap yourself. Now you're equating typing a twitter message with launching nuclear weapons that kill people. Stop already.

Agreed.

The poll question was:

"tell me how much confidence you have in each leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs — a lot of
confidence, some confidence, not too much confidence or no confidence at all. a. U.S. President Donald Trump"

Making an inference about nuclear weapons from a rather vague question
(where the easy rejoinder is "doing the right thing is often unpopular")
is a big stretch.
 
Specifically Neil is miss-representing what I have said and what I meant to try to “win” (what eaxactly?) on a technical point of his own creation.

I raised the point that political leaders and their character and personality are a potential weakness in nuclear deterrent system.
I argued that the contention that concerns about President Trumps character in this regard (in general, but also in respect of the US deterrent) was a creation of his Democratic political rivals was untrue, and that similar concerns were widely shared in countries allied with the US, with concerns on the nuclear front being particularly triggered by the content and tone of his commemts re: North Korea.
Following Neil’s feedback I gave practical examples from my own life while Arjen helpfully provided world wide polling on the low level of confidence in President Trump.

Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.

I never said that the majority of the people of US’s allies are going to bed each night shaking in fear that President will that night instigate nuclear Armageddon.
What I said is that these people generally have a low opinion of his personality and character being suited to the Presidental role and that would be most concerning in the nuclear context.
Read my comments in their context with an open mind and it is clear that was what was intended.
And I don’t find the arguments presented that generally low trust and opinion of a US President is somehow completely isolated from the nuclear question at all convincing.

Neil, you have repeatedly pushed this discussion in the direction of Trump for your own reasons.
I was trying to make a wider point about the significance of the character and personality on the person with ultimate say on the use of the nuclear deterrent and relatively few restraints he or she has in respect of the worlds nuclear powers.
And I was saying this from a place of supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence.
I was not making a covert attack on that concept or on President Trump.

Even just taking the latest twitter-escapades if I wanted to I could wax lyrical on concerns about the current US Presidents character and personality and his undermining of trust in him by his closest allies.
But that’s not the discussion I set out to have.
And Neil if you continue to insinuate base motives on my part while disingenuously misrepresenting what I said then I will take the appropriate actions.
 
kaiserd said:
Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.
Conflating, well, I may have done so interfrastically so I didn't notice it myself. Lucky for me somebody else did.
 
Arjen said:
kaiserd said:
Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.
Conflating, well, I may have done so interfrastically so I didn't notice it myself. Lucky for me somebody else did.

For the uninitiated; https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dinterfrastically%26amp%3Dtrue
A perfectly cromulent word....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-cromulent-mean
 
kaiserd said:
Specifically Neil is miss-representing what I have said and what I meant to try to “win” (what eaxactly?) on a technical point of his own creation.

I raised the point that political leaders and their character and personality are a potential weakness in nuclear deterrent system.
I argued that the contention that concerns about President Trumps character in this regard (in general, but also in respect of the US deterrent) was a creation of his Democratic political rivals was untrue, and that similar concerns were widely shared in countries allied with the US, with concerns on the nuclear front being particularly triggered by the content and tone of his commemts re: North Korea.
Following Neil’s feedback I gave practical examples from my own life while Arjen helpfully provided world wide polling on the low level of confidence in President Trump.

Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.

I never said that the majority of the people of US’s allies are going to bed each night shaking in fear that President will that night instigate nuclear Armageddon.
What I said is that these people generally have a low opinion of his personality and character being suited to the Presidental role and that would be most concerning in the nuclear context.
Read my comments in their context with an open mind and it is clear that was what was intended.

Ok. Now I'm following you. If I would have read your comments

1. in their context and
2. with an open mind

it would have been clear what you intended.

I couldn't just read the text. Btw... Here is the original post. Emphasis mine.

kaiserd said:
I am not looking to get political on this point.
While I personally advocate the nuclear deterrent it critics and sceptics have a point in relation to quality and mindset of the individual who ultimately gets to make the decision to use/ not use it.
It’s the one part of the deterrent “system” most wrapped up with human nature and strengths and weaknesses of the one individual.
So, for example some people would have potentially justifiable concerns about one politician too readily using the deterrent while in an another scenario other people would have potentially justifiable concerns about another politician being too reticent to use the deterrent.
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.

kaiserd said:
And I don’t find the arguments presented that generally low trust and opinion of a US President is somehow completely isolated from the nuclear question at all convincing.

Poll questions matter.

kaiserd said:
Neil, you have repeatedly pushed this discussion in the direction of Trump for your own reasons.

Just responding to your post K.

kaiserd said:
I was trying to make a wider point about the significance of the character and personality on the person with ultimate say on the use of the nuclear deterrent and relatively few restraints he or she has in respect of the worlds nuclear powers.
And I was saying this from a place of supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence.
I was not making a covert attack on that concept or on President Trump.

Yes, you've said this several times. You included in your wider point a snarky comment, that, rewritten, reads thus...

Much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies, share justifiable concerns about the current US president (which I very much hope prove to be incorrect) too readily using the (nuclear) deterrent.

I have found no information that US's closets friends and allies have made these statements. The info provided by Arjen does not support this statement.

Making this statement is inflammatory so I called you on it. You're upset.

I get it.


kaiserd said:
1. Even just taking the latest twitter-escapades if I wanted to I could wax lyrical on concerns about the current US Presidents character and personality and his undermining of trust in him by his closest allies.
But that’s not the discussion I set out to have.
2. And Neil if you continue to insinuate base motives on my part while disingenuously misrepresenting what I said then I will take the appropriate actions.

1. Perhaps, but this topic is about nuclear weapons.

2. Ahhh. There's the threat.

Brother, let's just say that you didn't mean to write what you wrote and move on already. Shall we?
 
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
Specifically Neil is miss-representing what I have said and what I meant to try to “win” (what eaxactly?) on a technical point of his own creation.

I raised the point that political leaders and their character and personality are a potential weakness in nuclear deterrent system.
I argued that the contention that concerns about President Trumps character in this regard (in general, but also in respect of the US deterrent) was a creation of his Democratic political rivals was untrue, and that similar concerns were widely shared in countries allied with the US, with concerns on the nuclear front being particularly triggered by the content and tone of his commemts re: North Korea.
Following Neil’s feedback I gave practical examples from my own life while Arjen helpfully provided world wide polling on the low level of confidence in President Trump.

Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.

I never said that the majority of the people of US’s allies are going to bed each night shaking in fear that President will that night instigate nuclear Armageddon.
What I said is that these people generally have a low opinion of his personality and character being suited to the Presidental role and that would be most concerning in the nuclear context.
Read my comments in their context with an open mind and it is clear that was what was intended.

Ok. Now I'm following you. If I would have read your comments

1. in their context and
2. with an open mind

it would have been clear what you intended.

I couldn't just read the text. Btw... Here is the original post. Emphasis mine.

kaiserd said:
I am not looking to get political on this point.
While I personally advocate the nuclear deterrent it critics and sceptics have a point in relation to quality and mindset of the individual who ultimately gets to make the decision to use/ not use it.
It’s the one part of the deterrent “system” most wrapped up with human nature and strengths and weaknesses of the one individual.
So, for example some people would have potentially justifiable concerns about one politician too readily using the deterrent while in an another scenario other people would have potentially justifiable concerns about another politician being too reticent to use the deterrent.
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.

kaiserd said:
And I don’t find the arguments presented that generally low trust and opinion of a US President is somehow completely isolated from the nuclear question at all convincing.

Poll questions matter.

kaiserd said:
Neil, you have repeatedly pushed this discussion in the direction of Trump for your own reasons.

Just responding to your post K.

kaiserd said:
I was trying to make a wider point about the significance of the character and personality on the person with ultimate say on the use of the nuclear deterrent and relatively few restraints he or she has in respect of the worlds nuclear powers.
And I was saying this from a place of supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence.
I was not making a covert attack on that concept or on President Trump.

Yes, you've said this several times. You included in your wider point a snarky comment, that, rewritten, reads thus...

Much of the world, including much of the US's closets friends and allies, share justifiable concerns about the current US president (which I very much hope prove to be incorrect) too readily using the (nuclear) deterrent.

I have found no information that US's closets friends and allies have made these statements. The info provided by Arjen does not support this statement.

Making this statement is inflammatory so I called you on it. You're upset.

I get it.


kaiserd said:
1. Even just taking the latest twitter-escapades if I wanted to I could wax lyrical on concerns about the current US Presidents character and personality and his undermining of trust in him by his closest allies.
But that’s not the discussion I set out to have.
2. And Neil if you continue to insinuate base motives on my part while disingenuously misrepresenting what I said then I will take the appropriate actions.

1. Perhaps, but this topic is about nuclear weapons.

2. Ahhh. There's the threat.

Brother, let's just say that you didn't mean to write what you wrote and move on already. Shall we?

So much for construction discussion.
Again these arbitrary lines in the sand; for example when have I said their public statements by allies specifically re: nuclear weapons.
There are plenty of comments expressing serious concern about the current US President from his closet allies, for example just the latest example;
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/theresa-may-not-afraid-to-criticise-donald-trump
Even within the domain of political niceties among allies there are reports of concern directly re: nuclear weapons;
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-nato-country-member-worried-concerns-a8055256.html%3Famp

I haven’t said anything remotely inflametory in this discussions and I have gone out of my way to be diplomatic in my wording. I have also tried to be as precise as possible with my wording but to no avail.

I would query with any readers/ contributors with anything like an open mind to consider how much trust you could reasonably expect your close allies to have in the quality and reliability of the decision making of any President who behaves in this manner.

But maybe your right; maybe the US main allies have unshakeable confidence and belief in President Trump,
For reasons.

Well Neil, I presume there will be some come back, some other artificial construct of a false argument.
I am not angry I am bored; I’d hope for an actual discussion but apparent that’s not what you’ve intended.
If you must continue in this vain can we at least move onto another point of argument?
 
The Independent story is based on a CNN story which is based on an unquoted anonymous source;
CNN does not have a good recent track record for stories with this basis.
 
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

Bump! Just in case anyone is interested in discussing the underlying reasons why nuclear weapons are considered so important by some...
 
Kadija_Man said:
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

Bump! Just in case anyone is interested in discussing the underlying reasons why nuclear weapons are considered so important by some...

It’s an unfortunate truth that you can’t un-invent nuclear weapons.
In that context the logic that if a potential adversary has them you need them too to deter their use is pretty inescapable.

There is also a clear moral blackhole in respect of using nuclear weapons if deterrence has failed and it’s a case of mutually assured destruction; a head of state that would give that order is probably committing one of the worse war crimes ever committed and is consciously murdering millions of objectively innocent people.

Unfortunately the mutual blackmail with each other’s populations as unwitting hostages is the best model we’ve come up with that works in the real world.
Let’s all hope this model doesn’t fail us and that we come up with something that is better and that is actually workable and achievable.
 
Add to this that you're not in much of a position to deny others the possession of nuclear weapons if you have them yourself.

Which is where proliferation comes in.
 
kaiserd said:
Kadija_Man said:
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

Bump! Just in case anyone is interested in discussing the underlying reasons why nuclear weapons are considered so important by some...

It’s an unfortunate truth that you can’t un-invent nuclear weapons.
In that context the logic that if a potential adversary has them you need them too to deter their use is pretty inescapable.

There is also a clear moral blackhole in respect of using nuclear weapons if deterrence has failed and it’s a case of mutually assured destruction; a head of state that would give that order is probably committing one of the worse war crimes ever committed and is consciously murdering millions of objectively innocent people.

Unfortunately the mutual blackmail with each other’s populations as unwitting hostages is the best model we’ve come up with that works in the real world.

Let’s all hope this model doesn’t fail us and that we come up with something that is better and that is actually workable and achievable.

It appears that some are unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. I wonder why?

To me, it appears that some believe that nuclear weapons are the only answer to nuclear weapons. It also appears that some seem to think that they need more than what their enemy has, to deter them from attacking. The problem with that thinking is that the other side is susceptible to it as well, which leads to an inescapable spiral, with each side building more and more weapons. Such an arms race is not sustainable and that is all that has been offered thus far in the other thread. Some people appear unwilling to question whether or not they have enough weapons...
 
Kadija_Man said:
kaiserd said:
Kadija_Man said:
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

Bump! Just in case anyone is interested in discussing the underlying reasons why nuclear weapons are considered so important by some...

It’s an unfortunate truth that you can’t un-invent nuclear weapons.
In that context the logic that if a potential adversary has them you need them too to deter their use is pretty inescapable.

There is also a clear moral blackhole in respect of using nuclear weapons if deterrence has failed and it’s a case of mutually assured destruction; a head of state that would give that order is probably committing one of the worse war crimes ever committed and is consciously murdering millions of objectively innocent people.

Unfortunately the mutual blackmail with each other’s populations as unwitting hostages is the best model we’ve come up with that works in the real world.

Let’s all hope this model doesn’t fail us and that we come up with something that is better and that is actually workable and achievable.

It appears that some are unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. I wonder why?

To me, it appears that some believe that nuclear weapons are the only answer to nuclear weapons. It also appears that some seem to think that they need more than what their enemy has, to deter them from attacking. The problem with that thinking is that the other side is susceptible to it as well, which leads to an inescapable spiral, with each side building more and more weapons. Such an arms race is not sustainable and that is all that has been offered thus far in the other thread. Some people appear unwilling to question whether or not they have enough weapons...

As some one who sees the need for a nuclear deterrent I recognize that it needs to be sufficiently survivable and devestating that no rational opponent would disregard it or consider a first strike a viable alternative.
We can debate what is required for that to be achieved (for example for the US I would see the benefit if the triad in ensuring survivability of their deterrence, and indirectly their opponent who won’t chase an massively expensive counter if it only answers 1 of the 3 arms of the triad).

As for some contributors who obsess about having the same number of warheads as X country, or X country & Y country, that says more about their personal obsessions than a sensible deterrent policy.
There are of course different views on this.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/865520/donald-trump-moron-rex-tillerson-nuclear-warheads-world-war-3-north-korea-kim-jong-un
 
Kadija_Man said:
kaiserd said:
Kadija_Man said:
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question for the pro-nuclear folks here. I asked it in the other thread but it was ignored.

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

Bump! Just in case anyone is interested in discussing the underlying reasons why nuclear weapons are considered so important by some...

It’s an unfortunate truth that you can’t un-invent nuclear weapons.
In that context the logic that if a potential adversary has them you need them too to deter their use is pretty inescapable.

There is also a clear moral blackhole in respect of using nuclear weapons if deterrence has failed and it’s a case of mutually assured destruction; a head of state that would give that order is probably committing one of the worse war crimes ever committed and is consciously murdering millions of objectively innocent people.

Unfortunately the mutual blackmail with each other’s populations as unwitting hostages is the best model we’ve come up with that works in the real world.

Let’s all hope this model doesn’t fail us and that we come up with something that is better and that is actually workable and achievable.

It appears that some are unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. I wonder why?

We don't know the number of aimpoints (designated ground zeroes), their hardness, the
prelaunch survivability estimates for US weapons, the probability of weapon penetration,
weapon reliability etc. to drive towards an analytically derived number.

In even with those numbers the desire to hedge against the uncertainties inherent in warfare
tend to shift the quantity outcome higher.



Kadija_Man said:
To me, it appears that some believe that nuclear weapons are the only answer to nuclear weapons.

I'm curious as to what the other answers would be.

Massive conventional force probably aren't the answer they have to mass to be effective
and that mass them vulnerable to attack by nuclear weapons. Heck, even Stormin' Norman was concerned
that the "Hail Mary" route was a potential trap lined with an Iraqi nuke.

Kadija_Man said:
It also appears that some seem to think that they need more than what their enemy has, to deter them from attacking. The problem with that thinking is that the other side is susceptible to it as well, which leads to an inescapable spiral, with each side building more and more weapons.

Depends on your targeting strategy (and other policies i.e. extended deterrence)
and your pre-launch survivability. If you are strictly concerned with
assured second strike and destroying enemy cities then you don't need much.

But there's generally been a desire to avoid destroying cities which drives a higher weapons count
or "more usable" weapon types e.g. nuclear earth penetrators and high fusion fraction weapons.

Kadija_Man said:
Such an arms race is not sustainable and that is all that has been offered thus far in the other thread.

Or one side drops out or it gets managed but that depends on the positive political objectives (e.g. irredentist)
and world view; the US and the UK didn't come to blows over the post-WWI naval arms race.
 
The post WW1-arms race was nipped in the bud by the Washington Treaty - historians say much of that came about because the treaty nations feared huge financial troubles funding the race.
WW1 had bled the warring nations dry.
 
Arjen said:
The post WW1-arms race was nipped in the bud by the Washington Treaty - historians say much of that came about because the treaty nations feared huge financial troubles funding the race.
WW1 had bled the warring nations dry.

England had destroyed her main commercial rival and controlled vast new swaths of middle eastern oil.
The US and Japan were in great shape financially.
 
kaiserd said:
Specifically Neil is miss-representing what I have said and what I meant to try to “win” (what eaxactly?) on a technical point of his own creation.

I raised the point that political leaders and their character and personality are a potential weakness in nuclear deterrent system.
I argued that the contention that concerns about President Trumps character in this regard (in general, but also in respect of the US deterrent) was a creation of his Democratic political rivals was untrue, and that similar concerns were widely shared in countries allied with the US, with concerns on the nuclear front being particularly triggered by the content and tone of his commemts re: North Korea.
Following Neil’s feedback I gave practical examples from my own life while Arjen helpfully provided world wide polling on the low level of confidence in President Trump.

Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.

I never said that the majority of the people of US’s allies are going to bed each night shaking in fear that President will that night instigate nuclear Armageddon.
What I said is that these people generally have a low opinion of his personality and character being suited to the Presidental role and that would be most concerning in the nuclear context.
Read my comments in their context with an open mind and it is clear that was what was intended.
And I don’t find the arguments presented that generally low trust and opinion of a US President is somehow completely isolated from the nuclear question at all convincing.

Neil, you have repeatedly pushed this discussion in the direction of Trump for your own reasons.
I was trying to make a wider point about the significance of the character and personality on the person with ultimate say on the use of the nuclear deterrent and relatively few restraints he or she has in respect of the worlds nuclear powers.
And I was saying this from a place of supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence.
I was not making a covert attack on that concept or on President Trump.

Even just taking the latest twitter-escapades if I wanted to I could wax lyrical on concerns about the current US Presidents character and personality and his undermining of trust in him by his closest allies.
But that’s not the discussion I set out to have.
And Neil if you continue to insinuate base motives on my part while disingenuously misrepresenting what I said then I will take the appropriate actions.

What does Trump have to do with anything in N Korea? Any President would politically have to talk tough or risk looking weak. The world thinks he is dangerous and unstable and lie in fear at night? That's their own problem for allowing their leaders to collectively lead them to this point. This situation was already there.

The "Planetary Zeitgeist" seems to be moving towards an inevitable showdown involving nuclear North Korea at some point. The ruling classes who have their bunkers want this to cull the populations and form a newer government system that takes away individual liberty.
And that Zeitgeist is moving away from sane rational Republics to a more Quasi-religious socialist/feudalistic police state system ruled over by the Elites and allowing a form of lawlessness for certain groups, i.e. Muslims, etc. with a popular puppet type front-man to cater to the planetary population masses like Obama was...an opiate for the masses whereas Trump is a Demon.

If anything, Trump is trying to rescue what is left of a dying system his predecessors actively were covertly dismantling, about to be overrun by the new system replacing it.
 
marauder2048 said:
Arjen said:
The post WW1-arms race was nipped in the bud by the Washington Treaty - historians say much of that came about because the treaty nations feared huge financial troubles funding the race.
WW1 had bled the warring nations dry.

England had destroyed her main commercial rival and controlled vast new swaths of middle eastern oil.
The US and Japan were in great shape financially.

Actually, the UK was on it's knees. It had over-reached it's strategic ability and much of it's defence policy in the 1920s and 1930s was attempting to hang onto what it had taken. Oil was only known at that stage in Iran. No other reserves had been discovered in the Middle-East or South-West Asia. To them, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt were simply sandy, arid wastes. You have to look at the problem through the eyes of the time, not modern eyes.

Japan was also having severe financial problems. It's economy simply could not sustain the defence spending the militarists felt was necessary. The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 only exacerbated matters, while military adventurism in Korea/Manchuria/China and Russia made it even worse.

The USA was also having financial difficulties. While their effects were worsened by the 1927 Great Depression, the problems that created were starting to show after WWI. The US Government was in the grip of isolationism and of course "small governmentism" (which still holds sway today), prevented it from realising it's true potential. Only WWII brought it out of those two dead-end positions.
 
kcran567 said:
What does Trump have to do with anything in N Korea? Any President would politically have to talk tough or risk looking weak. The world thinks he is dangerous and unstable and lie in fear at night? That's their own problem for allowing their leaders to collectively lead them to this point. This situation was already there.

I have no desire to get into a slanging match about President Trump. His policies on nuclear weapons appear to be a sop to certain quarters amongst his support base as far as I can tell. Obama if he was to have served a third term would have been forced to adopt similar policies IMHO.

The "Planetary Zeitgeist" seems to be moving towards an inevitable showdown involving nuclear North Korea at some point. The ruling classes who have their bunkers want this to cull the populations and form a newer government system that takes away individual liberty.

The DPRK has genuine desires about it's existence as a political state. Americans might not accept that as worthwhile but Kim Jung Un does. He will want to preserve his leadership and his nation's integrity. Until that is recognised by Washington, he will continue to prick away at Washington, launching missiles, letting of nuclear bombs. Washington will continue to rankle at that, as will the ROK and Japan and to a lesser extent the PRC and Russia. Washington will continue to try and provoke Kim Jung Un into doing something he will regret and to provide it with a Casus belli. If P'yong Y;ang doesn't do that, I am sure Washington will manufacture it's casus belli, as it has in the past (Vietnam. Iraq).

If Washington dealt honestly with P'yong Y'ang and accepted Kim Jong Un's legitimacy, this whole débâcle would end.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Actually, the UK was on it's knees. It had over-reached it's strategic ability and much of it's defence policy in the 1920s and 1930s was attempting to hang onto what it had taken. Oil was only known at that stage in Iran. No other reserves had been discovered in the Middle-East or South-West Asia. To them, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt were simply sandy, arid wastes. You have to look at the problem through the eyes of the time, not modern eyes.


British shipbuilding peaked in 1920 and declined *after* the Washington Treaty was signed.
That hardly sounds like a country on its knees.

Your imputed view to the British on the Middle East is completely ahistorical.

From geological analysis (dating back to at least 1886 for the British and 1901 for the Germans)
it was widely accepted that Iraq held vast reserves which is why the British and Germans
were trying to secure mineral rights for Mosul and Kirkuk (amongst other provinces) prior to WWI.


Japan was also having severe financial problems. It's economy simply could not sustain the defence spending the militarists feel was necessary. The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 only exacerbated matters, while military adventurism in Korea/Manchuria/China and Russia made it even worse.

The USA was also having financial difficulties. While their effects were worsened by the 1927 Great Depression, the problems that created were starting to show after WWI. The US Government was in the grip of isolationism and of course "small governmentism" (which still holds sway today), prevented it from realising it's true potential. Only WWII brought it out of those two dead-end positions.

Naturally you list dates after the Washington Naval Treaty which makes them irrelevant. The US and Japan
had belatedly initiated their naval expansion in response to British and German pre-war Naval expansion.
The Germans stopped in 1912 but everyone else continued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom