4 ms·

The entire calculus of having nuclear weapons in the first place rests on the assumption that no one will use them because to use them invites a retaliatory str

The entire calculus of having nuclear weapons in the first place rests on the assumption that no one will use them because to use them invites a retaliatory strike. Reducing the likelihood of a retaliatory strike, under this model, increases the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used. Now of course, this model may be wrong (pre-emptive strike on non-nuclear state with no nuclear allies); but I'm somewhat disturbed that the Pentagon employees don't seem to understand this. Maybe they do, and the author only gave the initial reaction rather than their full counterargument.

hga 11y ago
This was all in the context of "Warmonger Reagan" becoming president. Assuming bad will on the part of the author is perhaps not required, but it was a safe bet back then.
- vidarh 11y ago
  And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs. the Soviet Union worse than any others since Kennedy, to the point where there's indications that the Soviet Union were concerned that Able Archer 83 was preparation for a real attack and considered a first strike. It was first faced with the reality of the level of Soviet fear of an US attack that appears to have set him on a new course. In '81, worrying about Reagans antagonistic foreign policy was quite rational.
  - hga 11y ago
    Worse than any since Kennedy, but to a purpose: the end of the Soviet Union, which he actually achieved. Kennedy blundered into his crises by projecting weakness, and being worse than weak in the Bay of Pigs invasion, Reagan at least was making a calculated gamble that paid off, when few thought the inevitable end of the Soviet Union could be a fraction as peaceful as it was. And I noticed no "new course" on his part, your claim elsewhere in this discussion that it made "him determined to sit down with the Soviet leadership" is not supported by my memory. He was certainly willing to "sit down with" them, he just wasn't willing to surrender even more to them. The accession of Gorbachev to was almost certainly a more significant factor (then again, maybe Gorbachev's hand was strengthed by Able Archer 83 et. al.), and note for example the much hyped "failure" at Reykjavík following the earlier one in Geneva.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    "And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs. the Soviet Union" No, the increase in tensions and hostility occurred as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which occurred under Jimmy Carter (another Nobel Peace Prize winner).
    - hga 11y ago
      That was the real start, for sure, but Reagan took the pressure of every type, except silly things like the grain embargo, to 11. For instance ... actually, I can see moralist Carter saying something like this after he saw the light, but still: Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.... So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. That was in 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire
      - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
        Well, why should the US sell grain to nations whose established goal is to end our way of life? "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us." So let's not sell them rope. Or grain, in this case.
        hga 11y ago
        Because that's a weapon to only use in a hot war? Because it's a fungible commodity in plentiful world supply, and we're better off benefiting from that trade ourselves? Because it most directly puts the lie to their claims their economic system is superior? "If it's so good, why can't you grow enough food for yourselves but have to buy it from us?"
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  MAD predated "Warmonger Reagan" by decades. It was fully in place around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). As for "Warmonger Reagan", how many shooting wars did he actually get us into? How many shooting wars are we in right now, under "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" Obama?
  - hga 11y ago
    The "cut open an innocent's chest" "thought experiment" is what I'm talking about, but with the changing of the original URL to one that doesn't focus or start with it, this whole thread and many others makes much less if any sense. And I for one didn't call him that, it was people like those making up such things who called him that and much worse. Although I'll admit I've found "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama" to be funny ever since it happened, it will be such forever.
archgoon 11y ago
This comment is made redundant by linking to the full article, rather than the boing boing stub which I was originally commenting on. The new article talks about the point of deterrence, and the associated logic, in greater depth. Here was the original article that had been posted: http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-nuclear-lau.html http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-nuclear-l...

hga 11y ago

This was all in the context of "Warmonger Reagan" becoming president. Assuming bad will on the part of the author is perhaps not required, but it was a safe bet back then.

vidarh 11y ago
And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs. the Soviet Union worse than any others since Kennedy, to the point where there's indications that the Soviet Union were concerned that Able Archer 83 was preparation for a real attack and considered a first strike. It was first faced with the reality of the level of Soviet fear of an US attack that appears to have set him on a new course. In '81, worrying about Reagans antagonistic foreign policy was quite rational.
- hga 11y ago
  Worse than any since Kennedy, but to a purpose: the end of the Soviet Union, which he actually achieved. Kennedy blundered into his crises by projecting weakness, and being worse than weak in the Bay of Pigs invasion, Reagan at least was making a calculated gamble that paid off, when few thought the inevitable end of the Soviet Union could be a fraction as peaceful as it was. And I noticed no "new course" on his part, your claim elsewhere in this discussion that it made "him determined to sit down with the Soviet leadership" is not supported by my memory. He was certainly willing to "sit down with" them, he just wasn't willing to surrender even more to them. The accession of Gorbachev to was almost certainly a more significant factor (then again, maybe Gorbachev's hand was strengthed by Able Archer 83 et. al.), and note for example the much hyped "failure" at Reykjavík following the earlier one in Geneva.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs. the Soviet Union" No, the increase in tensions and hostility occurred as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which occurred under Jimmy Carter (another Nobel Peace Prize winner).
  - hga 11y ago
    That was the real start, for sure, but Reagan took the pressure of every type, except silly things like the grain embargo, to 11. For instance ... actually, I can see moralist Carter saying something like this after he saw the light, but still: Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.... So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. That was in 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire
    - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
      Well, why should the US sell grain to nations whose established goal is to end our way of life? "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us." So let's not sell them rope. Or grain, in this case.
      - hga 11y ago
        Because that's a weapon to only use in a hot war? Because it's a fungible commodity in plentiful world supply, and we're better off benefiting from that trade ourselves? Because it most directly puts the lie to their claims their economic system is superior? "If it's so good, why can't you grow enough food for yourselves but have to buy it from us?"
Turing_Machine 11y ago
MAD predated "Warmonger Reagan" by decades. It was fully in place around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). As for "Warmonger Reagan", how many shooting wars did he actually get us into? How many shooting wars are we in right now, under "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" Obama?
- hga 11y ago
  The "cut open an innocent's chest" "thought experiment" is what I'm talking about, but with the changing of the original URL to one that doesn't focus or start with it, this whole thread and many others makes much less if any sense. And I for one didn't call him that, it was people like those making up such things who called him that and much worse. Although I'll admit I've found "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama" to be funny ever since it happened, it will be such forever.

archgoon 11y ago

This comment is made redundant by linking to the full article, rather than the boing boing stub which I was originally commenting on. The new article talks about the point of deterrence, and the associated logic, in greater depth. Here was the original article that had been posted: http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-nuclear-lau.html http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-nuclear-l...