3 ms·

> The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. A military whose first line of defence is nuclear weapons is not a functioning

> The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. A military whose first line of defence is nuclear weapons is not a functioning military. I don't think you want what you say you want. We all wish the military were cheaper, but that doesn't mean it should be at any cost.

paradite 9y ago
I think thousands of nuclear warheads are pretty good military resources as a form or deterrence, much more effective than conventional weapons as a defensive measure.
- CountSessine 9y ago
  So what happens when someone calls your nuclear bluff and you don't have a conventional armed forces? Especially when it's not an attack on the continental US? For example, what if China decided to invade Diego Garcia or Guam or some other strategic asset? Or even the Aleutian Islands? Would you really launch a retaliatory nuclear attack? Would you send John Kerry to the UN to wag his finger at the Chinese representative? Would you call the Chinese ambassador to the White House and tell him that you're very cross with his leaders?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    The Cold War taught us that all that really matters is when the other side thinks you'll use nuclear weapons.
    - PatentTroll 9y ago
      Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or they did. So in that respect, maybe nuclear arms are entirely toothless. Or, think about this. Let's say that China or Russia does launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US. Complete devastation ensured for the US. What's better, then? Also a desolated China or Russia? No. The optimal response would be to holster our own nukes and let at least some of the world continue to preserve the species, right? I mean, in that case we're already dead no matter what. Sure it sucks, but I'd rather take action to ensure the continuity of humanity than exact 'revenge'
      - ethbro 9y ago
        That's you. Thankfully, China or Russia doesn't think people like you will be making the nuclear call. Which is one thing the anti-nuke, give-peace-a-chance crowd has always been absolutely stupid about. The entire idea of nuclear deterrence is predicated on continuously issuing as rabid statements as possible about your willingness to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for any strike (while simultaneously issuing statements that you never intend to use nukes as a first strike). Whether you would or would not actually use them, in the emphasis of Strangelove, it is essential that your potential adversaries have no suspicions that you might not use them. So any statements that don't sound like a madman with his or her finger on the button, just waiting for a chance to nuke the foreigners are actually incredibly dangerous and destabilizing (regardless of actual beliefs).
justicezyx 9y ago
> A military whose first line of defense is nuclear weapons is not a functioning military. What's the relevance of this statement towards OP? Reducing nuke does not harm US' strategic supremacy at all. The current arsenal is plainly too much... It's dead simple to reduce cost and still maintain the same strategic position. But you know what, USA won't do it...
- vacri 9y ago
  The GP was saying to reduce conventional forces because of the nukes, not the other way around.
flukus 9y ago
It's not the first line. The first line is the Atlantic and pacific oceans. That's been Americas first line of defense since it's inception all the way up until WW2.

paradite 9y ago

I think thousands of nuclear warheads are pretty good military resources as a form or deterrence, much more effective than conventional weapons as a defensive measure.

CountSessine 9y ago
So what happens when someone calls your nuclear bluff and you don't have a conventional armed forces? Especially when it's not an attack on the continental US? For example, what if China decided to invade Diego Garcia or Guam or some other strategic asset? Or even the Aleutian Islands? Would you really launch a retaliatory nuclear attack? Would you send John Kerry to the UN to wag his finger at the Chinese representative? Would you call the Chinese ambassador to the White House and tell him that you're very cross with his leaders?
- ethbro 9y ago
  The Cold War taught us that all that really matters is when the other side thinks you'll use nuclear weapons.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or they did. So in that respect, maybe nuclear arms are entirely toothless. Or, think about this. Let's say that China or Russia does launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US. Complete devastation ensured for the US. What's better, then? Also a desolated China or Russia? No. The optimal response would be to holster our own nukes and let at least some of the world continue to preserve the species, right? I mean, in that case we're already dead no matter what. Sure it sucks, but I'd rather take action to ensure the continuity of humanity than exact 'revenge'
    - ethbro 9y ago
      That's you. Thankfully, China or Russia doesn't think people like you will be making the nuclear call. Which is one thing the anti-nuke, give-peace-a-chance crowd has always been absolutely stupid about. The entire idea of nuclear deterrence is predicated on continuously issuing as rabid statements as possible about your willingness to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for any strike (while simultaneously issuing statements that you never intend to use nukes as a first strike). Whether you would or would not actually use them, in the emphasis of Strangelove, it is essential that your potential adversaries have no suspicions that you might not use them. So any statements that don't sound like a madman with his or her finger on the button, just waiting for a chance to nuke the foreigners are actually incredibly dangerous and destabilizing (regardless of actual beliefs).

justicezyx 9y ago

> A military whose first line of defense is nuclear weapons is not a functioning military. What's the relevance of this statement towards OP? Reducing nuke does not harm US' strategic supremacy at all. The current arsenal is plainly too much... It's dead simple to reduce cost and still maintain the same strategic position. But you know what, USA won't do it...

vacri 9y ago
The GP was saying to reduce conventional forces because of the nukes, not the other way around.

flukus 9y ago

It's not the first line. The first line is the Atlantic and pacific oceans. That's been Americas first line of defense since it's inception all the way up until WW2.