4 ms·

> This is why the U.S. chose to stay so deeply engaged in the affairs of Europe Aside from this rather endearing naivete, the gist of the article is fine: we n

> This is why the U.S. chose to stay so deeply engaged in the affairs of Europe Aside from this rather endearing naivete, the gist of the article is fine: we need to fear another 'Great War'. Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state, rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible. We live in the 21st century now, things are different than before, and highly dangerous as long as states put their self-interest above our common global destiny, as is the attitude du jour. People behave as if nothing bad can happen, it's highly frustrating to watch.

jcranmer 8y ago
> Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state, rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible. That is folly. The idea of MAD is that you have second-strike capabilities that are sufficiently hardened that no first-strike attack is capable of preventing the second-strike retaliation from occurring. In essence, the idea is that the calculus becomes "if we go to war, the only outcome is that we both lose."
21 8y ago
> Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state What are you talking about? Only 9 states have nuclear weapons. Of them, only 5 have any significant number.
- claytoneast 8y ago
  Do the others really matter, then, in this context?
umvi 8y ago
> rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible Are you implying you can destroy the enemy's nuclear arsenal in your first strike? If so, you don't understand MAD. Any submarine arsenal will be nearly impossible to destroy. If you first strike North Dakota (for example) to destroy all the missile silos, subs will simply eradicate your country.
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  I understand MAD. But "nearly impossible" is not impossible (think not only nuclear, but the whole arsenal of modern weapons, including computerized, chemical, biological etc). The problem is not actual first-strike capability though, it is perceived such, be it one's own or the enemy's.
  - umvi 8y ago
    The whole premise of submarine nuclear strikes is that: A single submarine cannot be trivially located - the ocean is too deep and vast. If countries working together can't find the wreckage of a single crashed airplane in a generally known location, how do you expect them to find dozens of cloaked subs in unknown locations each holding hundreds of nuclear warheads? Even assuming you wipe out 100% of the continental USA's weapons with a first strike, there are still thousands of nukes in the ocean ready to wipe your country off the face of the earth. How does this fit in with your original argument that first strikes "render the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible"?
    - stareatgoats 8y ago
      I find it interesting that your examples involve the case where the US is under attack. Let's turn it round: do you find it equally implausible that the US would not believe they have a capacity to thwart the second-strike capacity of say, North Korea? I'm not saying this is more realistic, I'm saying it is this perception of first-strike capability that is dangerous, and any country can believe themselves to be invincible, not just the US.

jcranmer 8y ago

> Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state, rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible. That is folly. The idea of MAD is that you have second-strike capabilities that are sufficiently hardened that no first-strike attack is capable of preventing the second-strike retaliation from occurring. In essence, the idea is that the calculus becomes "if we go to war, the only outcome is that we both lose."

21 8y ago

> Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state What are you talking about? Only 9 states have nuclear weapons. Of them, only 5 have any significant number.

claytoneast 8y ago
Do the others really matter, then, in this context?

umvi 8y ago

> rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible Are you implying you can destroy the enemy's nuclear arsenal in your first strike? If so, you don't understand MAD. Any submarine arsenal will be nearly impossible to destroy. If you first strike North Dakota (for example) to destroy all the missile silos, subs will simply eradicate your country.

stareatgoats 8y ago
I understand MAD. But "nearly impossible" is not impossible (think not only nuclear, but the whole arsenal of modern weapons, including computerized, chemical, biological etc). The problem is not actual first-strike capability though, it is perceived such, be it one's own or the enemy's.
- umvi 8y ago
  The whole premise of submarine nuclear strikes is that: A single submarine cannot be trivially located - the ocean is too deep and vast. If countries working together can't find the wreckage of a single crashed airplane in a generally known location, how do you expect them to find dozens of cloaked subs in unknown locations each holding hundreds of nuclear warheads? Even assuming you wipe out 100% of the continental USA's weapons with a first strike, there are still thousands of nukes in the ocean ready to wipe your country off the face of the earth. How does this fit in with your original argument that first strikes "render the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible"?
  - stareatgoats 8y ago
    I find it interesting that your examples involve the case where the US is under attack. Let's turn it round: do you find it equally implausible that the US would not believe they have a capacity to thwart the second-strike capacity of say, North Korea? I'm not saying this is more realistic, I'm saying it is this perception of first-strike capability that is dangerous, and any country can believe themselves to be invincible, not just the US.