Quote:
Originally Posted by OntheRail
Allowing Russia to go on with no leash yanking is Okey Dokey with you... Got it.
|
I don't really care if they want to put nukes on Trucks and drive them around... no... here's why... and also why they're doing it.
MAD is mutually assured destruction. In order for it to work it has to be assured. Think of it like this...
Two people are holding guns to each others head's. Neither one of them will pull the trigger because it means the other one will do the same. That's deterrence... or MAD in a nutshell.
By violating the ABM Treaty the United States upset that balance and really upset it when it comes to Europe. Essentially what the United States did in my analogy is pull out a sheet of lead with its other hand and put it between their head and the barrel of their adversary.
The Russians, because they're poor and backward, can't afford their own sheet of lead so what they are doing is pulling out an old gun they had put away in their other pocket and pointing it at our head as well... we can block one but we can't block two.
MAD is maintained.
By announcing that we will now begin doing this stuff the Russian's will have to respond yet again... needlessly destabilizing the situation.
As far as Mattis' comments the INF allows for missiles on ships so his nuclear tipped cruise missiles aren't anything new or a violation. His move is a correct one operating within the existing framework. Trump's move is not.
Here is a super old post of mine on MAD:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Having enough weapons is a deterrent. We don't determine whether or not our deterrent is credible the other side does. Thats why I asked you the question would you attack a country knowing they would rain 800 weapons on you afterward? Like I said with 600 weapons you could level every city in this country over 50,000 people. Hundreds of millions would be dead.
The huge build-up that occurred from the 50's into the Nixon presidency was the arms race. It resulted from both sides seeking incredibly huge amounts of weapons to gain some imperceivable advantage over the other. It was first-strike logic. That if you built up enough bombs you could, in one preemptive attack, cripple the other to the point where they wouldn't be able to respond.
In a attempt to offset this both sides began developing second-strike capability. The theory being that we could take the others best possible punch and still be able to respond with a devastating blow. Thats how the nuclear triad developed (bombers, silos, and subs).
With both sides having first and second strike capability the Nixon Administration realized continuation of the arms race was completely stupid. How shiny does the glass you turn the Soviet Union into really need to be? To create a stable environment for deterrence both sides signed the ABM preventing each from developing missile defense because it upsets the theory of MAD. Then began the SALT agreements and eventually START. These agreements were designed to ensure MAD. Despite what people on here will tell you missile defense is bad for deterrence and more likely to cause a war than prevent one. (If one side can punch and the other can't punch back you don't have MAD)
Currently we have a bunch of nuclear weapons that are extremely expensive to maintain like silo's and bomber's that really are a first strike weapon since they wouldn't survive beyond 30 minutes into a exchange. They don't serve much of a purpose anymore and like I said 800 weapons would send us, the Russians, or the Chinese back to antiquity.
The President isn't even sharing the details of how this might be done but if we still have a credible deterrent who really cares?... If there was an exchange and we took 2,000 from the Russians and only hit back 500 does it really matter? Did we lose and they win?... We are both still dead...
|
