Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | ... | 2360
tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686710 12-Dec-2016 20:52
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

 

 

What you have described is the nuclear deterrent. USSR and USA can initiate that, kill the other side, and they will kill our side, that is why it never happened. Arch enemies, but not stupid. ISIS, Pakistan/India, North Korea, not as smart. The only bonus is northern hemisphere.

shk292
2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

  #1686713 12-Dec-2016 20:54
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

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

 

 

Exactly - but the deterrent needs to be credible.  So if an aggressor can for instance do one large air-burst that generates an EMP and disables the deterrent, it greatly increases the chance of this being a valid strategy.

 

Similarly, if you have the hardware but a leader (eg Corbyn) who says he would never use it, that's not a credible deterrent.

networkn
Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686716 12-Dec-2016 21:01
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

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.

 

 

It was not a specifically targeted comment, it was a general comment. I feel there are ways for people to communicate their points without using aggressive or belittling tones. If that applies to you, then so be it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it :) 

 

I find the distinct lack of respect shown from members here to each other in the course of discussions to be exhausting and sole destroying some days is all. 

 

Edit: I see why you thought this was directed at you specifically based on the fact I used the term "you" right after Your post, that was coincidental. I should have used "people" as it wasn't addressed at one person but as the group together. 

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686717 12-Dec-2016 21:03
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

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.

 

 

All I know is that the USSR and the USA had a vicious Cold War, BUT THEY ARE NOT STUPID. Unlike ISIS, India/Pakistan and PRNK who probably would. As would Bin Laden, and Idi Amin if they had that option. Today is actually relatively safe as compared to what it could be. Humans are awesome, OR NOT

 

Edit: Coleslaw to Cold War :-)

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686718 12-Dec-2016 21:03
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

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

 

 

Can you clarify? :-)

shk292
2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

  #1686721 12-Dec-2016 21:06
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

 

No problem and thanks for the clarification.  

Rikkitic
Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

  #1686722 12-Dec-2016 21:07
Send private message quote this post

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686723 12-Dec-2016 21:14
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

tdgeek:

 

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

 

 

Exactly - but the deterrent needs to be credible.  So if an aggressor can for instance do one large air-burst that generates an EMP and disables the deterrent, it greatly increases the chance of this being a valid strategy.

 

Similarly, if you have the hardware but a leader (eg Corbyn) who says he would never use it, that's not a credible deterrent.

 

 

I feel that the world these days is more credible. Even though we have had two Iraq/Afghan wars and now iSiS. We were probably better off when the USSR and USA were squaring off, neither were stupid. Threats, news, but nothing will happen.

shk292
2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

  #1686724 12-Dec-2016 21:15
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

The point is that it has worked (up to now) and nobody has thought of a better way (up to now).  It's a hugely complicated subject involving probability and game theory, which is why it gets very annoying when people suggest we could just unilaterally give them up and everything would be lovely and peaceful.  Overkill, for example, is necessary to ensure that a first preemptive strike isn't a valid strategy.

 

I'm sure there are books and websites which can explain it fully if you're really interested in understanding how we got here and where we go next

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686726 12-Dec-2016 21:18
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

shk292:

 

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.

 

 

It was not a specifically targeted comment, it was a general comment. I feel there are ways for people to communicate their points without using aggressive or belittling tones. If that applies to you, then so be it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it :) 

 

I find the distinct lack of respect shown from members here to each other in the course of discussions to be exhausting and sole destroying some days is all. 

 

Edit: I see why you thought this was directed at you specifically based on the fact I used the term "you" right after Your post, that was coincidental. I should have used "people" as it wasn't addressed at one person but as the group together. 

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

 

 

I AGREE caps intended. Its fine to discuss, disagree. But when its on the internet, an adult discussion can end in keyboard warriors. I have probably been guilty as well. Ive seen some very cool people disappear from here. Thats why. Not just here either. 

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686727 12-Dec-2016 21:19
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

networkn:

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

 

No problem and thanks for the clarification.  

 

 

Awesome. Some realism in this unreal virtual world. 

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686728 12-Dec-2016 21:24
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

 

 

I will shorten your post to one word, as bolded. It does work. It has worked. USSR vs USA, they both had many warheads aimed. Red button push. Never happened. Not ideal sure. The world has evolved as modern humans are very very young. Now we have ISIS, India/Pakistan/PRNK. That is actually better. Its manageable, but not ideal. 

darylblake
1165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 407

Trusted

  #1686734 12-Dec-2016 21:50
Send private message quote this post

The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.

tdgeek
29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1686736 12-Dec-2016 21:57
Send private message quote this post

darylblake: The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.

 

India/Pakistan its not about them, its about physical fallout to others. In these modern times, there should be no nuclear risk. Yesterdays Idi Amin is todays Kim Jong Un. Needs to be cut at the knees. None of this oil for food BS. India and Pakistan need to be told by the united world, DONT. DO and your both cut off

darylblake
1165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 407

Trusted

  #1686753 12-Dec-2016 22:15
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

darylblake: The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.


India/Pakistan its not about them, its about physical fallout to others. In these modern times, there should be no nuclear risk. Yesterdays Idi Amin is todays Kim Jong Un. Needs to be cut at the knees. None of this oil for food BS. India and Pakistan need to be told by the united world, DONT. DO and your both cut off



Yes well that is the biggest concern. What makes you think Kim Jong wants to use these weapons apart from his direct rhetoric. He DPRK has had weapons since October 2006.

Don't get me wrong any use would be an absolute disaster, but what would have to change to get any of the 9 countries to use them?

I completely agree with you a united world voice is definitely influential but it hasn't done much for proliferation.

1 | ... | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | ... | 2360
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Updates »

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

RSS feeds
Main feed
Forums feed
Copyright
©2002-2025 Geekzone®
Site features
Geekzone BI dashboard
Geekzone Badges
Geekzone Status Page

 

Site Information
Subscribe to Geekzone
Privacy Statement
Forum Usage Guidelines (FUG)
Advertising
Trademark and copyright