3 ms·

See, now, this is proper scary. A US pre-emptive nuclear first strike that could happen at any moment is something that really worries me. The fact that the US

See, now, this is proper scary. A US pre-emptive nuclear first strike that could happen at any moment is something that really worries me. The fact that the US appears to be optimising its nuclear arsenal to do this is frightening. And giving the Russians/Chinese less and less room to do the same is frightening. And then the US giving the keys to this decision to someone as egotistical, narcissistic and unstable as Trump, is really frightening. I can totally see him deciding to launch as a hissy-fit reaction to being impeached. I think I'm going to rejoin the CND, if it's still a thing...

snagglegaggle 7y ago
You assume the US undertaking a first strike is more likely than some kind of retaliation for some perceived slight by some other nuclear power, like Russia or China? That's... strange. Historically those forgoing weapons were subjugated. If you want to be nonviolent to a fault, fine, but leave me out of it.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  TFA is saying that the USA is optimising its nuclear arsenal for a surprise first strike capability. Surprise first strikes work best if unexpected. So encouraging the President to throw a hissy fit and press the button is the best strategy if you're a nuclear general with rockets to launch. First strikes aren't retaliation. This is not escalation of a conventional conflict. This is out-of-the-blue, kill the other guy's ability to hit you. Think Pearl Harbour but with nukes. If "having a fight" means we both die, then non-violence is the only answer. A nuclear war has no "winners". Being "subjugated" or "not-subjugated" is the same: generations of radioactive hell. Losing a conventional war is better than winning a nuclear war. So yes, non-violence please.
cryptonector 7y ago
The President can't realistically order a first-strike and then cause it to actually happen. No matter who the President might be, no one in the armed forces, is going to go along. For similar reasons, the President could not fail to launch a retaliatory strike if another nation launches a first-strike on the U.S.: the armed forces would force him/her to do so in that case. The best he/she could do is hold back until the first-strike is confirmed to the point where they can no longer hold back. And whatever else you might think about the current President, he's been trying to extricate the U.S. from current wars, and he's declined opportunities to start a war against Iran or NK, so why would you be more afraid of him launching a first-strike than any other President? Ah, but you're not necessarily worried about Trump, but about a future President "as egotistical, narcissistic and unstable as Trump". Still, see above.
- dividedbyzero 7y ago
  I hope you're right and a launch order out of the blue wouldn't be carried out. What about high-tension situations, though? President Trump has been warlike mostly on Twitter so far, but he is beyond doubt a very temperamental person, one who takes a very aggressive stand at times, and I could see him escalating conflicts very far, very quickly, unwittingly to a point where another side may interpret things in a way that favors a first strike. His cabinet and critical staff are have many very inexperienced people, it's been reported that State and Defense have lost many highly competent career civil servants to industry; all that might result in a very fast-evolving situation driven by people with very limited situational awareness and experience in such matters, without the personnel to effectively intervene. And, according to the article, the decision whether to take a Tweet alluding to, say, an impending first strike for face value or not, and whether to launch preemptively or not, would have to be taken within minutes. That's deeply scary.

snagglegaggle 7y ago

You assume the US undertaking a first strike is more likely than some kind of retaliation for some perceived slight by some other nuclear power, like Russia or China? That's... strange. Historically those forgoing weapons were subjugated. If you want to be nonviolent to a fault, fine, but leave me out of it.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
TFA is saying that the USA is optimising its nuclear arsenal for a surprise first strike capability. Surprise first strikes work best if unexpected. So encouraging the President to throw a hissy fit and press the button is the best strategy if you're a nuclear general with rockets to launch. First strikes aren't retaliation. This is not escalation of a conventional conflict. This is out-of-the-blue, kill the other guy's ability to hit you. Think Pearl Harbour but with nukes. If "having a fight" means we both die, then non-violence is the only answer. A nuclear war has no "winners". Being "subjugated" or "not-subjugated" is the same: generations of radioactive hell. Losing a conventional war is better than winning a nuclear war. So yes, non-violence please.

cryptonector 7y ago

The President can't realistically order a first-strike and then cause it to actually happen. No matter who the President might be, no one in the armed forces, is going to go along. For similar reasons, the President could not fail to launch a retaliatory strike if another nation launches a first-strike on the U.S.: the armed forces would force him/her to do so in that case. The best he/she could do is hold back until the first-strike is confirmed to the point where they can no longer hold back. And whatever else you might think about the current President, he's been trying to extricate the U.S. from current wars, and he's declined opportunities to start a war against Iran or NK, so why would you be more afraid of him launching a first-strike than any other President? Ah, but you're not necessarily worried about Trump, but about a future President "as egotistical, narcissistic and unstable as Trump". Still, see above.

dividedbyzero 7y ago
I hope you're right and a launch order out of the blue wouldn't be carried out. What about high-tension situations, though? President Trump has been warlike mostly on Twitter so far, but he is beyond doubt a very temperamental person, one who takes a very aggressive stand at times, and I could see him escalating conflicts very far, very quickly, unwittingly to a point where another side may interpret things in a way that favors a first strike. His cabinet and critical staff are have many very inexperienced people, it's been reported that State and Defense have lost many highly competent career civil servants to industry; all that might result in a very fast-evolving situation driven by people with very limited situational awareness and experience in such matters, without the personnel to effectively intervene. And, according to the article, the decision whether to take a Tweet alluding to, say, an impending first strike for face value or not, and whether to launch preemptively or not, would have to be taken within minutes. That's deeply scary.