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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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 really don't think he ought to.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.
Arjen said:I really don't think he ought to.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.
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.
kaiserd said:Arjen said:I really don't think he ought to.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
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....)
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.
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.
The chart I posted has a subtitle "Confidence in U.S. President Donald Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs"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.
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.
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?
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.
Conflating, well, I may have done so interfrastically so I didn't notice it myself. Lucky for me somebody else did.kaiserd said:Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.
Arjen said:Conflating, well, I may have done so interfrastically so I didn't notice it myself. Lucky for me somebody else did.kaiserd said:Neither I (or Arjen, sorry you got dragged into this) tried to conflate anything.
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.
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.
kaiserd said:Neil, you have repeatedly pushed this discussion in the direction of Trump for your own reasons.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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...
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?
Kadija_Man said:To me, it appears that some believe that nuclear weapons are the only answer to nuclear weapons.
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.
Kadija_Man said:Such an arms race is not sustainable and that is all that has been offered thus far in the other thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.