Hey N Korea....wanna buy some nukes?

[ArlJim78]

the downsizing of our nuke strength is simply one more part of Obama's war on America, his quest to fundamentally transform the country from a strong successful one to a weak inconsequential one. take apart the economy, bankrupt the treasury, gut the military, slash our nuke deterrance, upset, unbalance and in some cases overthrow every ally we have in the world, while assisting and bankrolling radical Islam everywhere else, while fomenting and encouraging race and class warfare at home.

good times, good times.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

Aren't you the guy who said the nuclear reactor leaks in Japan were no big deal?

You can't answer a simple yes or no question and then ask something that actually is completely irrelevant...

Thats funny...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You can't answer a simple yes or no question and then ask something that actually is completely irrelevant...

Thats funny...

Hey, I asked the first question......you ignore that fact, like you ignore
reality.

But I'll call you - the answer is no - I would not attack anyone for the sake of attacking them.

Ball's in your court now, Shaq.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

Hey, I asked the first question......you ignore that fact, like you ignore
reality.

But I'll call you - the answer is no - I would not attack anyone for the sake of attacking them.

Ball's in your court now, Shaq.

You asked does this make us less safe... the answer is no.

Then you prove the point why we don't need more weapons than the other guy. Its called a deterrent, Kobe...

[Tom]

Having less weapons is a deterrent?

[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...

[newtothegame]

Elysian,
I have to agree with you on this one. You can only have so many before you reach a saturation point. Anything beyond that is just "macho".
I have no problem with reducing the totally outrageous numbers. But, how? I think some of these materails have like many thousand years life. Next, I also don't think it's so much about our stock piles...it's more about the russian and chinese. And no, I am not referring to their numbers. I am referring to the safety of them. From a financial standpoint, I have always worried about the russians "losing" some.
With our heading further towards the same financial troubles, how safe are ours?
As to MAD, I never understood why we would want that. I do understand your thought process as MAD being the only real deterrent. But, if I am on the other side of a missile defense system, and I think I may lose. Why would I ever even consider launching? That's where I don't follow your logic as a missile defense system being more likely to start a war. The person without that defense would be really stupid to not only go up against an equal number of warheads but, to also have to face the possibility of going against a missile defense program....would mean it's pointless!

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

As to MAD, I never understood why we would want that. I do understand your thought process as MAD being the only real deterrent. But, if I am on the other side of a missile defense system, and I think I may lose. Why would I ever even consider launching? That's where I don't follow your logic as a missile defense system being more likely to start a war. The person without that defense would be really stupid to not only go up against an equal number of warheads but, to also have to face the possibility of going against a missile defense program....would mean it's pointless!

You have to think of it as a process. You don't just snap your fingers overnight and have a national missile defense system. They take time to research, develop, and implement. If a country A is getting close to having one country B will feel compelled to attack because if they don't do it now they may never be able to again. Also, once country A has a system B's weapons that they have relied on to protect them are now rendered worthless.

Finally, even if country B decides not to attack they too must now create their own missile defense system to protect themselves, build weapons to beat the system, or make even more weapons to overwhelm it. Then you are back at square one which is a arms race.

For deterrence to work relative parity must be kept between the countries. Not too long ago there was a thread complaining about how we were sharing interceptor technology with the Russians. Most were upset but if you believe in deterrence and MAD it is much better for both sides to be open and share their technology to keep that parity so neither side gets a upper hand.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You have to think of it as a process. You don't just snap your fingers overnight and have a national missile defense system. They take time to research, develop, and implement. If a country A is getting close to having one country B will feel compelled to attack because if they don't do it now they may never be able to again. Also, once country A has a system B's weapons that they have relied on to protect them are now rendered worthless.

Finally, even if country B decides not to attack they too must now create their own missile defense system to protect themselves, build weapons to beat the system, or make even more weapons to overwhelm it. Then you are back at square one which is a arms race.

For deterrence to work relative parity must be kept between the countries. Not too long ago there was a thread complaining about how we were sharing interceptor technology with the Russians. Most were upset but if you believe in deterrence and MAD it is much better for both sides to be open and share their technology to keep that parity so neither side gets a upper hand.

Ok, fair enough Elysian. I see your point! But, let me explain why I think your logic is flawed. Since the begining of time, man has always wanted to rule man. That is one constant that will not change. Due to this insatiable urge to want to have things "your way", man will always try to one up the other. To put themselves in a position of strength.
It doesnt always have to be militarily either. Look at what the chinese and japanese have done to our economies from a financial standpoint.
The point is there will ALWAYS be that "need" the "urge".....
Your ideas are fine if the given is that all of man kind wants to live in harmonious neghborhoods. This is just not the case.
We can unilaterally disarm...fine! But, if we think for a moment that Russia or china, or any other country will do the same, we must be out of our damn minds. Treaties mean NOTHING. You can find tens if not hundreds of treaties that are broken regularly.
The minute one of our counterparts thinks we are in a position of weakness, don't think for a minute they will not try to exploit it.
Our nuke arsenal has provided us security for many years. You can't just go back and close pandoras box.
But, again I do agree that at some point, one more weapon doesnt make a bit of difference.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

...
We can unilaterally disarm...fine! ...

I'm kind of a total moron on this subject because I see most of the strategies as being convincing in theory, but then get all skeptical about the practical part - in part because of idea behind your post, but I enjoy reading the banter nonetheless.

The only thing I will add for laughs and appalled retorts that tends to get overlooked, maybe because it's an admitted idiot suggesting it - not everyone with a stake in strategy is necessarily playing this game of poker with a set of 52 cards. I mean, saying that someone else may not do something because it is "stupid" or even "suicidal" doesn't necessarily convince me that person really gives a shit about your perspective of what constitutes "stupid" or shares the same opinion of the repercussions from "suicide".

I call it the "Man Assuming Noone's Insane Across Continents" (M.A.N.I.A.C.) philosophy.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

Ok, fair enough Elysian. I see your point! But, let me explain why I think your logic is flawed. Since the begining of time, man has always wanted to rule man. That is one constant that will not change. Due to this insatiable urge to want to have things "your way", man will always try to one up the other. To put themselves in a position of strength.
It doesnt always have to be militarily either. Look at what the chinese and japanese have done to our economies from a financial standpoint.
The point is there will ALWAYS be that "need" the "urge".....
Your ideas are fine if the given is that all of man kind wants to live in harmonious neghborhoods. This is just not the case.
We can unilaterally disarm...fine! But, if we think for a moment that Russia or china, or any other country will do the same, we must be out of our damn minds. Treaties mean NOTHING. You can find tens if not hundreds of treaties that are broken regularly.
The minute one of our counterparts thinks we are in a position of weakness, don't think for a minute they will not try to exploit it.
Our nuke arsenal has provided us security for many years. You can't just go back and close pandoras box.
But, again I do agree that at some point, one more weapon doesnt make a bit of difference.

Its not my point. Its a theory that was developed by people much smarter than me thats worked for the past 30-40 years. People can reject it if they want.

I also agree with you that all sides consistently try to bend the rules of these agreements but most of the tenants are followed by both sides. The reason is they are simply mutually beneficial. Not to get off topic but the Treaties you are talking about have transparency clauses in them that allow each side to inspect eachothers weapons. These countries DON'T trust each other, thats why they make these agreements extremely rigorous. Plus in today's information age it simply isn't that easy to keep big glaring violations secret.

As far as the Chinese that Boxcar keeps yammering these agreements don't apply to them because they haven't reached the level of parity with the United States and Russia... the same reasons they don't apply to the French, British, etc. If/when they do they will be invited to join in and if they don't then we can have another arms race again . But they haven't reached our level yet so there really is no worry on the nuclear front.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Having enough weapons is a deterrent.

Too long of a post in its entirety to quote, but I learned much and thank you for taking the effort to outline an intricate issue.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm kind of a total moron on this subject....

Thank you for your candor, Professor Hannibal.

[chickenhead]

the fundamental problem the possibility of nuclear war brought about is Chekhov's gun adage:

"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." "

There will, eventually, be a large scale thermonuclear war. That is the grand finale to Act 3. It's just how things work.

Thankfully, eventually the sun will also explode -- so I don't take it too hard. Eventually will get us all, one way or another.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm kind of a total moron on this subject because I see most of the strategies as being convincing in theory, but then get all skeptical about the practical part - in part because of idea behind your post, but I enjoy reading the banter nonetheless.

The only thing I will add for laughs and appalled retorts that tends to get overlooked, maybe because it's an admitted idiot suggesting it - not everyone with a stake in strategy is necessarily playing this game of poker with a set of 52 cards. I mean, saying that someone else may not do something because it is "stupid" or even "suicidal" doesn't necessarily convince me that person really gives a shit about your perspective of what constitutes "stupid" or shares the same opinion of the repercussions from "suicide".

I call it the "Man Assuming Noone's Insane Across Continents" (M.A.N.I.A.C.) philosophy.

I agree completele John, and that's where most of my arguement comes from. Just look at Iran. If we take them at face value, their nuclear ambitions are only for "peaceful purpose". Yet their, whole idealogy is about the destruction of Isreal and they openly say that as well.
There is not one logical reason that I can think of where Imadinnerjacket cares about MAD. If he were to get his hands on ONE single weapon, I could realistically see it being used. You know the whole twelfth IMAM .....
Russia, they seem to have a little more sense about them. Putin seems to me would more want to rule the world...and not a glass one from a nuclear war.
Same with the Chinese. Not too mention, we owe the Chinese a whole lot of money! I guess that's a saving grace for us lol. Our MAD protection against China is our debt lol.
But, in all seriousness (and this is more directed at Elysian), if we went only by treaties and those leaders words, no one has weapons lol. As to the enforcement of those treaties, just look at the run around the IEAE is getting in Iran, N Korea, Iraq before the wars.....
But, I am sure they were all wanting to abide by international law.
The Russians, Chinese, and AMERICANS will show the others what they want them to know....thats the bottom line. If it weren't the case, there would be no need for spies !