3 ms·

There's already a Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in Romania. The United States has no official policy of mutually assured destruction. If you're asking m

• vkou 6y ago
  I don't care about what the official policy is. I care about the outcomes. Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you, today, before your anti-MAD system is in place. It will, after all, save more Russian lives then being attacked by an unassailable adversary in the future. The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons.
  • auganov 6y ago
    > Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you No, I doubt Russia would dare use their nukes. Again the facility in Romania has become operational in 2019, no nuke from Russia so far. The one Obama cancelled was supposed to be in Poland. Roughly similar distance from mainland Russia. > The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons. Expecting to lose without putting up a fight is defeatism. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But nonetheless I'm very happy that the US and other militaries are preparing for this scenario. Switzerland has a system of nuclear bunkers that can house more than its current population - I think that's very smart. It's not set in stone that humanity would end after such a war. Some projections even see most Americans surviving. And don't discount a scenario where America can totally neutralize an adversary's nuclear capability with new tech. This should be (and probably is) the goal. We don't even know that much about the current capability. Practically speaking a "MAD" approach benefits Russia much more than anybody else. Their military is rather unimpressive. Russia's nuclear capability is the only way Russia can seem strong and keep getting away with everything they do. Countries like Russia cannot be trusted to comply with any nuclear agreements. When the West stops its work on nuclear related technologies it only gives countries like Russia an edge.
    • vkou 6y ago
      > No, I doubt Russia would dare use their nukes. Again the facility in Romania has become operational in 2019, no nuke from Russia so far. There's a difference between stopping a small percentage of missiles, and a large percentage of missiles. One does nothing to stop MAD. The other is a categorical change in the balance of power. It's like the difference between cutting off 5% of your air supply, and cutting off 80% of your air supply. You barely feel a difference from losing 5%, surely you can do it again and again and again... But let's turn this question around. Suppose that Russia announces that it has begun working on ICBM defenses. Once complete, they expect to protect themselves from 98 to 99% of American missiles. These defenses will be complete in 12 months - faster than you could build your own equivalents. What do you do? Do you just sit around, and let them become the only nuclear power that can do as it pleases, as it renders all of your weapons useless? Do you let it have free reign in diplomacy, with the ability to threaten and extort anyone it wants, without any fear of retaliation whatsoever? Do you just sit around, and wait until 'oh, golly, gee, those reds can now kill us all anytime they want to, with no blowback to them, shucks, I guess it is what it is'? Do you start building your own defenses, only to be attacked before they are ready, because they aren't interested in sharing a monopoly on consequence-free nuclear diplomacy? Or do you 'dare to use your nukes', and attack first, before their defenses are ready? I legitimately don't understand how the Russians can be seen as both such a wily, treacherous, capable adversary - while also taking steps to back them into a corner, where the only self-serving logical solution you leave them is for them to attack you first. I don't understand how you can endorse taking steps that push the world towards a nuclear war, while at the same time assuming that your adversaries will not respond to your brinkmanship with brinkmanship of their own. And it, quite frankly, horrifies me, because you are willing to bet hundreds of millions of lives on the theory that your adversary will not carry out a logical, self-serving, outcome-maximizing response to your actions.
      • auganov 6y ago
        If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it. As of right now America's capabilities in every domain are vastly superior and I hope it remains so. Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that. I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose. If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong". There is no alternative to an arms race. Russia and China won't simply become beautiful peace loving countries overnight if America slacks off. If anything assures nuclear war it's America being weak. Plus you're assuming some perfect rationality where Russia (or some other country) couldn't possibly just launch an attack for a stupid reason. It's always a possibility. You want to try to win in that situation too. Under MAD you're just hoping it won't happen.