|
On January 15 2010 14:08 Ecrilon wrote:
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare?
And now your not making any sense.
Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
|
And once again we have installed China as the dominant nuclear power with the likes of Pakistan and India eying each other. And you think no one will launch a nuke after it has become apparent that MAD is actually not true? (Something you believe but I do not.)
|
On January 15 2010 14:19 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 14:08 Ecrilon wrote:
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare? And now your not making any sense. Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
lol you really overestimate the zealousness of Americans. I'm sure they'd circulate an online petition or something, but lol at overthrowing their government in disgust.
|
On January 15 2010 07:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
Sarah Palin is a perfectly good example of why MAD logic is a stupid thing to bet the world on.
L the question asks what you would do after MAD has failed. Your answer can't go back in time and make things better.
Oh, but I'm not going back in time. I'm actually quite affixed in current time. Its you that are trying to push the clock forward to some undisclosed period of time with a context we haven't been in, with a situation none of us have ever been in. The countries are unnamed. The tension between them is unexplained. The world's difficulties and the current technology aren't really elaborated on.
That's precisely why I don't want to have to go back in time to make things better; I'll answer in the manner which is most likely to satisfy the common good, and that's the answer which promotes the deterrence of a species ending event.
|
On January 15 2010 14:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
And now your not making any sense.
Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
Short answer: No, they wouldn't...
Long answer: In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
This isn't the 1700's where the difference in arms between the average citizen and the military is a few boats and cannons. There is a massive difference now to the point where any serious revolt could immediately be put down with just a fraction of the government's military might. Unless you believe regular citizens could raid Airforce bases and hijack F-16's to operate them along with other military weaponry without training, or unless you somehow believe a significant percentage of our current military personnel would suddenly turn against the government for such a move, I would call BS immediately. There would be no contest. The time is long past in countries like America, Russia, and China where regular people can overthrow a nation by force. Change in countries like this can only happen from a foreign invasion or through peaceful means. And I'd like to see any nation that would stand up to America after it just showed a willingness to preemptively turn an enemy nuclear superpower which could have also destroyed America even after its own destruction into a smoldering crater... No other nation would dare. The same would apply if Russia was the country that destroyed America.
Let's also not forget the historical precedent. America has actually used nuclear weapons to incinerate two non-military cities and kill 200,000 people before. Yet here we stand, our government still perfectly intact, and we've yet to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons or technology. In fact, we've increased our nuclear armament with not only perfect knowledge of their destructive force, but BECAUSE of that very destructive force. We've also been in several wars and killed plenty of enemy soldiers and civilians without enough dissent to overthrow the government either. If anything, the government and military are glorified for it. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the destruction of what many Americans consider to be a "dangerous enemy state" would cause them to act out. You'd probably see a bunch of college kids protesting in front of the White House, but that's really about it... If much weaker warlords who kill their own citizens mercilessly can hold onto power, what makes you think the American government couldn't considering all they're doing is killing people that their citizens believe are evil?
There's absolutely no precedent or evidence to even suggest that Americans would behave the way you believe they would. All real historical precedent and evidence actually suggests the contrary...
|
Let's also not forget the historical precedent. America has actually used nuclear weapons to incinerate two non-military cities and kill 200,000 people before. Yet here we stand, our government still perfectly intact, and we've yet to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons or technology. In fact, we've increased our nuclear armament with not only perfect knowledge of their destructive force, but BECAUSE of that very destructive force.
The use of nuclear weapons against Japan was by and large accepted without qualms by the American people. It was various members of the government, Stimson foremost, who foresaw the necessity of negotiated nuclear disarmament, which culmulated in the Baruch plan in the summer of 1946. Soviet objections jettisoned the plan, and the arms race went on. However, the historical example itself does not reflect any superior pacifism of the people vis-a-vis the government. Most Americans in those narrow years would have subscribed to the notion that the moral exceptionalism of the American people went hand-in-hand with their possession of a nuclear monopoly.
|
On January 16 2010 06:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:
In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
|
On January 16 2010 09:06 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 06:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:
In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
I want you to admit that this thread isn't based on some clean idea of philosophical truth and reasoning, but it's merely a presentation of your opinion...
Suppose there was a single government with complete nuclear dominance. Now suppose the head of the project to develop their nuclear weapons advocated to the President to create an international agency with monopolistic control over all nuclear material and nuclear research and production. Suppose the President believes all their rivals to be years from the production of their first atomic weapon.
Would the president agree to it, or would he reject it so he could wield international influence from being the sole nuclear power?
|
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones).
|
On January 16 2010 10:56 Manit0u wrote:
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones).
Do you really think that they were unaware of the power of a nuclear bomb? I thought that they were tested before they were used.
And the symbolic power of the nuke vastly outweighs its tactical uses for sure.
|
On January 16 2010 11:50 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 10:56 Manit0u wrote:
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones). Do you really think that they were unaware of the power of a nuclear bomb? I thought that they were tested before they were used. And the symbolic power of the nuke vastly outweighs its tactical uses for sure.
They tested power, not radiation. Remember that they had been carpet bombing europe. What's the difference between a clean nuclear bomb and dropping bombs on every inch of a city?
|
On January 13 2010 11:24 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots.
Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
|
On January 16 2010 12:14 Cyrkulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L wrote:On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots. Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
Fake bombs don't count.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 16 2010 12:14 Cyrkulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L wrote:On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots. Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
You'd already bombed Tokyo with incendiaries. People always forget that the conventional bombing campaign against Japan killed far more civilians than the nukes. Incendiaries are no more humane either, they create a firestorm which sucks up all the air.
|
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes.
|
On January 16 2010 09:06 Archerofaiur wrote:
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
And how many people would be willing to do something about it if it meant they had to risk some sort of inconvenience to the lifestyle they've so comfortably settled into? Plenty of people grumble about all sorts of crap and have all manner of grievances. Most are content to grumble about it and just go about their day. Are half the people in our country still sane enough to remember that genocide is wrong? What percentage of that people would even take a day off of work to even do something so small as march in a protest? What percentage of those people do you think would pick up a weapon and challenge the US military if they felt there was something so terribly wrong or evil about what their country was doing to some other person on the other side of the world? As you escalate in level of response, the number of people willing to take part in it quickly dwindles until the half of the country that would agree that torturing people is wrong becomes 1/10,000 of the country that's willing to do anything about it.
The fact that people think something is wrong does not automatically translate into massive uprising and revolution. The vast majority of people will never revolt so long as they themselves aren't inconvenienced by the system and even if they themselves are inconvenience by that system, the majority STILL wouldn't revolt. Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on some moral principle, but you really have to accept that most people aren't. So long as they continue to have their coffee in the morning and their 9-5 job and all the little creature comforts of the world available to entertain them, the average person will put their head down, keep their grievances to themselves, and life out their lives relatively content. That is what the reasonable person would do and most people in the world are reasonable.
This, of course, is all not taking into account the power of media and propaganda either..
|
On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes.
The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes.
MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well.
On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust,
Fixed
|
If MAD logic can't last forever, you still need to nuke whoever breaks it.
|
On January 17 2010 01:32 Ecrilon wrote:
If MAD logic can't last forever, you still need to nuke whoever breaks it.
Only if you believe you do.
The only way to stop more nukes from being fired is to launch 7000 more.
|
Or you could launch 7000 conventional missiles. I'm not picky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
