8 ms·

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous s

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned? Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor. Of course, what a waste of money (eg ICBMs and SLBMs are superior in every respect) and unnecessary escalation of risk.

microcolonel 9y ago
It's a waste of money if you and your allies aren't under constant, repeated threat.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Even if you are under threat, what purpose is served in the modern age by putting bombers on alert? The war would be over before they reached an interesting target.
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    As I am sure you are aware, there is quite a bit of solid policy discussion on the various nuclear engagement scenarios. For this particular question the idea that if you can respond after a pre-emptive first strike then your enemy will have killed themselves by killing you. Since self preservation is a common thing, the ability to respond post initial strike is essential.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Missiles do that job just fine.
      - techdragon 9y ago
        ... Unless the silos are attacked by Submarine launched ballistic missiles using depressed trajectories as part of a neutralising/decapitation first strike. See it's the complicated, many possible options, nature of war planning that makes stuff like this much less black and white.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Bombers could be attacked the same way, and take longer to launch and take less to destroy, so are even more vulnerable. The threat of a sudden first strike that destroys our weapons on the ground is why we have ballistic missile submarines.
        eesmith 9y ago
        Whose submarines are you thinking of that could destroy all of the US ground-based missile launch facilities in a first strike? The war planning based around what you describe assumed the Soviet submarine fleet, yes? Are you worried about Russia, China ("the Type 094s noisiness would make it difficult for it to reach and maintain patrol areas where it could strike at the contiguous United States"), or India?
        bactrian 9y ago
        The US can probably see the position of every sub on the planet using magnetic imaging.
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
        Seriously, I really do think it is instructive to read the literature on this. Missiles in silos are counter balanced by a premptive strike on the silos, mobile missiles (like the MX) are pre-emptible as well but need more warheads, subs are a good counter threat but are tracked by other subs, and nuclear depth charges are able to clear lots of ocean fairly quickly, bombers with cruise missiles are countered with aircraft. In all cases there are costs and visibility challenges like you have to open your silo doors before you shoot missiles and over the arctic missiles take 30 minutes to arrive. Bombers in the air can see fighters who might be tailing them but they cant be countered by ground based missiles easily, it literally goes on and on. Measure, counter-measure. Signal, counter signal. Threat, defensive capability. Literally end of the world as we know it kind of stuff so a lot of time and effort has been invested in understanding it.
- carlisle_ 9y ago
  Some would argue a threat worsened by provocative and unilateral actions, but we'll see who writes the history books.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Unilateral actions such as capturing military vessels, ignoring international agreements, making credible mortal threats to billions of people, and launching ICBMs over other nations? DPRK has already engaged in acts of war against both ROK and Japan. There's nothing unilateral left.
    - trgv 9y ago
      I don't think the threats are credible. I don't see what NK would gain from "nuking Guam," besides the end of their country. It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing.
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        The threats are credible in that they would have no qualms about executing them, not in that they will fail to be averted. > It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing. That's exactly my point: there's nothing one-sided about this. DPRK is playing their hand, the U.S. must play theirs.
        Bendingo 9y ago
        > the U.S. must play theirs Or, as the far stronger side, the US could de-escalate. Not only is this the less-risky option, but it would also garner global respect/admiration for the US - something that has been in short supply for a long time.
        microcolonel 9y ago
        How do you suggest they de-escalate (without the use of military posturing) a situation where DPRK threatens the very existence of two of our greatest allies, perpetually? I'm sure you realize that if DPRK is left to their own devices, they will develop a sufficient deterrent to simply saunter into ROK, and face no foreign intervention.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
"General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!" Astonishingly good movie.

microcolonel 9y ago

It's a waste of money if you and your allies aren't under constant, repeated threat.

mikeash 9y ago
Even if you are under threat, what purpose is served in the modern age by putting bombers on alert? The war would be over before they reached an interesting target.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  As I am sure you are aware, there is quite a bit of solid policy discussion on the various nuclear engagement scenarios. For this particular question the idea that if you can respond after a pre-emptive first strike then your enemy will have killed themselves by killing you. Since self preservation is a common thing, the ability to respond post initial strike is essential.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Missiles do that job just fine.
    - techdragon 9y ago
      ... Unless the silos are attacked by Submarine launched ballistic missiles using depressed trajectories as part of a neutralising/decapitation first strike. See it's the complicated, many possible options, nature of war planning that makes stuff like this much less black and white.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Bombers could be attacked the same way, and take longer to launch and take less to destroy, so are even more vulnerable. The threat of a sudden first strike that destroys our weapons on the ground is why we have ballistic missile submarines.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Whose submarines are you thinking of that could destroy all of the US ground-based missile launch facilities in a first strike? The war planning based around what you describe assumed the Soviet submarine fleet, yes? Are you worried about Russia, China ("the Type 094s noisiness would make it difficult for it to reach and maintain patrol areas where it could strike at the contiguous United States"), or India?
      - bactrian 9y ago
        The US can probably see the position of every sub on the planet using magnetic imaging.
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      Seriously, I really do think it is instructive to read the literature on this. Missiles in silos are counter balanced by a premptive strike on the silos, mobile missiles (like the MX) are pre-emptible as well but need more warheads, subs are a good counter threat but are tracked by other subs, and nuclear depth charges are able to clear lots of ocean fairly quickly, bombers with cruise missiles are countered with aircraft. In all cases there are costs and visibility challenges like you have to open your silo doors before you shoot missiles and over the arctic missiles take 30 minutes to arrive. Bombers in the air can see fighters who might be tailing them but they cant be countered by ground based missiles easily, it literally goes on and on. Measure, counter-measure. Signal, counter signal. Threat, defensive capability. Literally end of the world as we know it kind of stuff so a lot of time and effort has been invested in understanding it.
carlisle_ 9y ago
Some would argue a threat worsened by provocative and unilateral actions, but we'll see who writes the history books.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Unilateral actions such as capturing military vessels, ignoring international agreements, making credible mortal threats to billions of people, and launching ICBMs over other nations? DPRK has already engaged in acts of war against both ROK and Japan. There's nothing unilateral left.
  - trgv 9y ago
    I don't think the threats are credible. I don't see what NK would gain from "nuking Guam," besides the end of their country. It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      The threats are credible in that they would have no qualms about executing them, not in that they will fail to be averted. > It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing. That's exactly my point: there's nothing one-sided about this. DPRK is playing their hand, the U.S. must play theirs.
      - Bendingo 9y ago
        > the U.S. must play theirs Or, as the far stronger side, the US could de-escalate. Not only is this the less-risky option, but it would also garner global respect/admiration for the US - something that has been in short supply for a long time.
        microcolonel 9y ago
        How do you suggest they de-escalate (without the use of military posturing) a situation where DPRK threatens the very existence of two of our greatest allies, perpetually? I'm sure you realize that if DPRK is left to their own devices, they will develop a sufficient deterrent to simply saunter into ROK, and face no foreign intervention.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

"General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!" Astonishingly good movie.