TaiidanTomcat
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Joined
- 19 July 2011
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 45
Bill Walker said:Of course that wouldn't prevent it. But it would limit the scope.
really? how?
Bill Walker said:Of course that wouldn't prevent it. But it would limit the scope.
bobbymike said:So how many nukes are your minimum, what is your strategy, how are they deployed, what is your target set. Assume Russia keeps 1550 and China has 300 to 500.
TaiidanTomcat said:I would suggest that if those other forms of war were possible, they'd have already occurred. The world and it's leaders fear the dangers of massive nuclear exchange. The problem is that once one warhead is launched, the assumption on the receiving state must be that others will follow and so there is always an impetus to retaliate massively to prevent the loss of all your warheads in the (supposed) incoming first strike of which your first warhead is but the precursor. Fail to launch your warheads means they will be caught on the ground and will be vulnerable if restraint is shown. This is nuclear strategy 101. No one really believes that limited nuclear war is possible except those who wish to live in never-never land IMHO.
Both the US Military and the Soviet Military and politicians lived in never never land then. As both sides understood concepts like 2nd and 3rd strikes, hostage cities, timed submarine attacks, levels of escalation, and both sides had direct lines to each other in order to communicate with words rather than massive world ending strikes- that of course both countries knew weren't feasible as an actual response.
What you are trying to tell me is that the US and the USSR who both embraced this strategy, were not actually embracing it. That President Carter actually didn't sign presidential directive 59. interesting position.
As I have pointed out now, several times but it appears you cannot grasp, deterrence is not about using your missiles, its about possessing them and threatening to use them. Your objective is to DETER your enemy from attacking you. You can achieve that with considerably smaller numbers of warheads than what some here seem to feel comfortable with. India and Pakistan achieve that with only tens of warheads, not hundreds, not thousands, not even more. Do you see a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent?
The next issue with deterrence, and I think others will agree here. is deterrence is not just about keeping the peace with a bored enemy, its also about keeping the peace with a highly determined enemy always probing for weakness. Its meant to survive a determined foe too.
We do indeed. Nuclear strategists will also point out that while they talk about "limited nuclear war" what they know in the back of their minds is that reality will be more like Kahn's "wargasm" than the end of WWII.
This is awesome, we can use expert opinion that goes unsaid? So for example in the backs of the minds of Russian Nuclear missile designers they all know the nukes are duds. Thus all Russian nukes are duds. This is going to make arguing things a lot easier now since we can claim the opposite of what someone actually said.
So, how many nuclear warheads does the DPRK possess? Is that sufficient to deter the US from attempting "regime change"? If so, don't you think that is sufficient, despite the massive numbers of nuclear warheads the USA has compared to North Korea? North Korea doesn't have to attack, it merely needs to possess to deter American attack.
of course the US didn't attack when DPRK had zero nukes. On that note, the US has a lot of enemies, and we rarely invade... and they don't have nukes either. The US never invaded libya, or Serbia, or Iran. None of whom have nukes. How did they deter us?
lastly, thanks to the US not being stupid, if war broke out with North Korea, the Nukes would be top priority. If the US couldn't get them conventionally and feared their use, they would get them with nuclear warheads. incredibly this wouldn't end in world ending mutually assured destruction, but would end in a limited nuclear engagement. Something you say is impossible.
sferrin said:So how do you explain the detonation of over ten times that many nukes in the 50s/60s not wiping out humanity?Bill Walker said:Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts.
sferrin said:That's naive fantasy. The other guy will always see the advantage of more.Bill Walker said:One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.
TaiidanTomcat said:Bill Walker said:A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.
By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.
Kadija_Man said:sferrin said:That's naive fantasy. The other guy will always see the advantage of more.Bill Walker said:One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.
Just as you seem to.
However, if limited by agreement, then there is no advantage in more because you will always know the numbers the other side actually has.
Kadija_Man said:TaiidanTomcat said:Bill Walker said:A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.
By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.
Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.
Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.
Kadija_Man said:Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.
Kadija_Man said:Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.
SOC said:Kadija_Man said:Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.
Untrue. We can always get people to do it for us! Bay of Pigs?
Kadija_Man said:Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.
Yeah, had we not bothered Afghanistan, then they'd be sitting there letting AQ continue to throw out propaganda saying how awesome they were that they pulled it off, emboldening others, and causing them to try and cause problems due to our lack of response, which they'd likely trump up as the US being scared or unable to do anything in response. Some things will not actually go away if they are ignored.
Also, the only argument against Iraq that works is against regime change. Nobody wants to deal with the fact that military action was already justified under existing UNSCRs because that'd remove their option for whining about it.
Besides, notice that places like Iraq (1990) did not play by the rules of modern society, deciding to repeal Kuwait's sovereignty. Lacking the ability to go over there and beat back the Iraqi Army, what should we have done? Asked nicely? Decided that Kuwait was now Iraq as they couldn't hold out for themselves? Or nuked Baghdad, which would've been one of the only real options available.
Avimimus said:Kadija_Man said:TaiidanTomcat said:Bill Walker said:A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.
By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.
Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.
Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.
On the other hand - a much larger invasion, which was willing to run a higher deficit initially, could have had enough feet on the group to prevent an insurgency...
That said - conventional armed forces are expensive. They also take casualties in training and there is always a greater risk that they'll interfere in internal politics of their own country (compared to a small armed force).
A smaller, better equipped force can still project force into smaller countries - so it would probably would make sense for the major power (Russia, China, India, the United States etc.) to jointly reduce the size of their conventional armed forces...
Kadija_Man said:One should not always believe what politicians say. Afterall, they may embrace the rhetoric of a particular strategy but that doesn't mean they will necessarily actually put it into action.
Widen your vision, I'd suggest and don't keep it narrowly focused on your own nation and try and learn from others.
The Soviet Union was determined to protect itself from aggression. Nuclear weapons ensured that. The US also probed aggressively Soviet defences at every turn. From the Soviet perspective you don't think they had a right to be worried about US intentions?
Who suggested that all Soviet nuclear warheads and missiles were duds? I am sure what track you're now haring off down but it doesn't seem related to the point I've just made and the differences between belief, perpection and reality.
hey didn't. They relied upon US restraint.
However, the DPRK and perhaps Iran in the future are going to make sure that they don't have to...
What always surprises me when right-wing Americans talk about nuclear capable or near-capable states, they invariably paint their use of nuclear weapons as if they are going to be used as their weapons of first resort. Pyongyang wants nuclear weapons as does Tehran so that they are not the next victims of Washington's "regime change" efforts, as Baghdad and Kabul were. Therefore their nuclear weapons will be weapons of last resort, if deterrence fails. Just as the United States would use them.
Kadija_Man said:Remind me, how well did that attempt at "regime change" work out again? :
Kadija_Man said:.... If the moderators want it moved, I'm sure they'll do so.
Jemiba said:Kadija_Man said:.... If the moderators want it moved, I'm sure they'll do so.
I think we should take title of this thread more literally, perhaps in the same sense, as in the
"Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY" topic .
This means, no discussions about regime change and other things here, not directly related to nuclear
weapons NEWS ! For other themes about nuclear armament, a new thread should be starfed then, either
in the Bar, or in the military section and if it's spacing out into political controversy, it's much easier then
to lock that thread .
Just read point 1 of the forum rules !
Kadija_Man said:Thats fine by me. Of course can I expect others to not post non-news and opinion pieces here either?
Jemiba said:Kadija_Man said:Thats fine by me. Of course can I expect others to not post non-news and opinion pieces here either?
I'll try my very best ! I've already modified the title and I'm on alert to delete all not appropriate
posts here ... or maybe to move them to other, more appropriatetopics, let's see.
The situation in the F-35 NEWS ONLY thread has become more relaxed in the meantime,I think,
so I'm confident, that it will work quite well here, too !
bobbymike said:... as long as the discussion is civil I don't know why you would have to have a separate thread.
Jemiba said:bobbymike said:... as long as the discussion is civil I don't know why you would have to have a separate thread.
That's the keyword, I think. If you look at quite a lot of the latest posts, the discussion had started to
be not really civil anymore, and it actually had not much to do with nuclear weapons.
To have a thread about nuclear weapons news is absolutely ok in the military section, but it would be a pity,
if such a thread, which could be a compilation of related events, would have to be locked, due to discussion running
out of control. And as such discussions are only rarely started by just technical questions about nuclear weapons,
but mainly about poltical ones, that's often the result, as experience shows. You know, political discussions aren't
encouraged here, but maybe tactical or strategical points can be discussed and if it ends in political controversy again,
this thread remains unhurt.
sferrin said:And this is why I wanted it moved. This isn't a politics thread. Show some self-control.Kadija_Man said:It is, then in my opinion, unavoidable to discuss them without also touching on the politics behind them.
Kadija_Man said:... I personally cannot see how they can be divorced from politics, after all, they are but "politics by another means" ...
bobbymike said:...How about "Nuclear Weapons News; Weapons, Tactics & Deterrence Theory'? I add the last two points because a lot of relevant studies that I have provided links to are about the numbers and types of weapons relating directly to the authors theory of deterrence, tactical and/or strategic employment of those weapons. Just a thought.