Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

Rikkitic:

 

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

 

 

Could you be more specific?  

Rikkitic:

 

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

It sounds MAD. 

What is being defended exactly? What makes it worth the risk of destroying the planet and everyone on it? If someone wants to say they are the boss of me that badly, they can have it as far as I am concerned. It is the dumbest, most self-defeating game of bluff and counter-bluff I can imagine. You are talking about two people pointing loaded guns at each other, and betting neither will fire because the other might also get a shot off before they die. What the hell kind of way is that to exist? If the 'enemy' wants to rule the world that badly, he can have it. Who cares who gets to call himself the winner? Better that than no world at all.

Rikkitic:

What is being defended exactly? What makes it worth the risk of destroying the planet and everyone on it? If someone wants to say they are the boss of me that badly, they can have it as far as I am concerned. It is the dumbest, most self-defeating game of bluff and counter-bluff I can imagine. You are talking about two people pointing loaded guns at each other, and betting neither will fire because the other might also get a shot off before they die. What the hell kind of way is that to exist? If the 'enemy' wants to rule the world that badly, he can have it. Who cares who gets to call himself the winner? Better that than no world at all.

 

I value survival higher than whatever system I happen to live under. Totalitarianism isn't necessarily the end of the world. Nuclear holocaust is. Gambling with the entire planet is stupid beyond belief in my opinion. The end of the cold war didn't prove anything, except that we had a lucky escape. Claiming that MAD prevented war is like claiming that scratching your arse prevents tigers. The fact that there are no tigers in the vicinity doesn't prove a thing.

So you are telling me that you would rather live in an irradiated post-apocalyptic landscape than in a Stalinist paradise? Oh wait, there are other options. My other option is to swallow a hefty dose of sanity and stop dreaming that being able to threaten the entire planet with total annihilation many times over is an answer to anything at all. What a mind-numbingly dumb path to peace that is.

Rikkitic:

 

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

 

 

 

Everyone available to fire the missiles would long be dead well before it was near 200 rest assured, even in a bunker.

Rikkitic:

 

I value survival higher than whatever system I happen to live under. Totalitarianism isn't necessarily the end of the world. Nuclear holocaust is. Gambling with the entire planet is stupid beyond belief in my opinion. The end of the cold war didn't prove anything, except that we had a lucky escape. Claiming that MAD prevented war is like claiming that scratching your arse prevents tigers. The fact that there are no tigers in the vicinity doesn't prove a thing.

So what's your alternative theory for why it ended?  Pixie dust?  A sudden attack of guilty conscience on the USSR's part?  Why else didn't the USSR use their vast conventional army and nuclear armoury to achieve their goals?

Rikkitic:

 

So you are telling me that you would rather live in an irradiated post-apocalyptic landscape than in a Stalinist paradise? Oh wait, there are other options. My other option is to swallow a hefty dose of sanity and stop dreaming that being able to threaten the entire planet with total annihilation many times over is an answer to anything at all. What a mind-numbingly dumb path to peace that is.

 

 

No, I'm not telling you that at all.  I'm saying that it was - as is proven by history - possible to face down the Soviet threat during the cold war by maintaining a credible conventional and nuclear deterrent.  The USSR had to give up on the arms race because the inefficient communist economy meant they could either feed their people (poorly, and only most of them), or compete with NATO, but not both.  Similarly, maintaining a deterrent now prevents nutters like Kim Jong-un trying anything stupid.  He hasn't stopped at the border with South Korea because he's a nice guy, or because he's afraid that lots of his troops will die

I am honestly embarrassed by the tone of some of these posts toward other people. Honestly, you'd give Trump a run for his money. 

Can I recommend that before hitting the post button you take a few moments and re-read what you are proposing to post?

networkn:

 

I am honestly embarrassed by the tone of some of these posts toward other people. Honestly, you'd give Trump a run for his money. 

 

Can I recommend that before hitting the post button you take a few moments and re-read what you are proposing to post?

 

If you're referring to my post then be assured that I proof-read it very carefully before posting and I stand by what I said.  Just because I have a different view to yours and argue my case strongly, that doesn't make me wrong.

As someone who joined the armed forces during the height of the cold war and served as part of the NATO deterrent for 20+ years, I consider I have a reasonable level of knowledge of the subject.

mutual stupidity deterred mutual destruction which would have been mutually stupid.

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Trump has been quite inconsistent on nuclear.

 

He's on record saying that he'd be "the last" to use them, that he's against proliferation.  But OTOH he's argued that the US arsenal is in "very terrible shape" and that impacts on the US ability to "protect" South Korea and Japan who in his opinion at the time should/could be nuclear armed.  Taking N Korea out of that equation, I assume that his guess of threat is from China who he seems to have a bit of a downer on, but China have an official "no first use" policy.  Considering the size of their nuclear industry which would give them the ability to easily produce a massive arsenal complete with state of the art delivery systems, their weapons stockpile is very small, a tiny fraction of US or Russian arsenals. 

 

I don't think Trump is at all keen on nuclear weapons and isn't a "direct" threat. He's nuts in many ways IMO, but not in that one. Clinton even seemed to target him earlier in the campaign questioning whether he'd have the will to launch a strike if needed 'cause "she would".  China also isn't a nuclear threat IMO. Pakistan/India are a risk only to each other.  N Korea is a PITA that someone's going to have to deal with.

 

It's really only the possibility of an indirect effect - something inadvertently initiated by Trump - which bothers me. 

 

 

 

 

I'd agree with all these points. 

 

You know, the initiator of the first Nuclear launch has as much to lose as gain. Retaliation is nearly *certain* and a lot of lives would be lost on both sides, mostly innocents. I don't think any current leader is going to be dreaming of the day they thought they might get to "launch" because unlike decades ago, there are a lot of missiles pointing right back at you.

 

 

 

Before reading following posts. Back in the day the issue was between the USSR and the US.  They both had the capability. But they arent stupid. I think it was Reagan that met Gorbachev. Feel free to correct. They talked. Then the girls talked. He is a good man Nancy said. It worked out. At that level, stupid people don't exist. There was a Cold War, Cuba crisis. But it never happened. Compare that to Idi Amin, PRNK it can exist . India/Pakistan. Forget the US launching, or Russia. The issue is against immature nations pressing the button. 

Rikkitic:

 

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

 

 

 

Not all life. I doubt their capability is that great. But China is next door. Winds, etc, will affect the Northern Hemisphere, and exchange to Southern Hemisphere is not great. But it would change everything. 

shk292:

 

Fred99:

 

The main thing I have against the "Air Force One" planes is that much of the cost (for systems to protect against electromagnetic pulse etc) is so that in the event of nuclear war, the Commander in Chief (Trump LOL) can safely fly around in comfort pushing buttons to launch more nuclear strikes to finish off the job.

 

That (IMO) is an abominable concept. So yes - I'd be happy if Trump canned it - even if for the wrong reasons.

 

 

It's called "credible deterrence".  If an enemy can "decapitate" the military/executive of a country with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, disabling that country's ability to launch a counter-strike, then it increases the chance of the pre-emptive strike being launched.  Arguably, the reason we haven't had a nuclear exchange is because both/all sides maintain a credible deterrent.  The reason the cold war ended was that NATO had a very credible deterrent and also had a stated policy (flexible response) to use tactical nukes first if the USSR overwhelmed Western Europe's defences with a massive invasion of conventional forces.  So, by wishing for USA to scrap an EMP-proof command facility, you're wishing for a greater chance of a nuclear exchange.  Personally, I don't think that's a good prospect.

 

Sorry, but no. It was about the nuclear deterrent. If you do, I will too. Doesnt really matter who does as all will be killed. Its about deterrent. And about the US not being dumb, and the USSR not being dumb. 

Thats fine, but these days, ISIS, Iran maybe but not likely, India/Pakistan possibly, PRNK, who knows

Rikkitic:

 

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

 

 

Referring to what post?