4 ms·

Again, as I said, I don't believe Russia has a reason to believe they'd win hence further advances in anti-nuclear defense only lessen the chance of them attack

Again, as I said, I don't believe Russia has a reason to believe they'd win hence further advances in anti-nuclear defense only lessen the chance of them attacking not increase it. If one side ends up controlling the other or there's a favorable truce to one side that side wins. All war is nasty and results in terrible destruction. Doesn't mean there's no winner at the end of it. I can throw random percentages around too. According to one simulation ("Crisis Relocation Program 2B") from the 80s given a few days of advance notice up to 80% of Americans could survive a nuclear war with Russia. One should strive to reduce potential casualties as much as possible. Do relocation programs, shelters etc "violate MAD" in your book too? Because they certainly lessen the D part. We know of at least two instances where Russians were close to erroneously launching nukes . Only stopped due to personnel disobeying procedures. It's almost inevitable one day someone somewhere will launch a nuke for whatever reason. Better be ready when that happens. Your strategy only kicks the can down the road and provides no way out. While in the meantime giving Russia and other adversaries all the reasons to keep continuing with their aggression. Is nobody allowed to ever attack Russia because of "MAD"?

jessaustin 6y ago
You seem unable to imagine yourself in anyone else's position. You hypothesize that Russia will always meekly back down, yet you can't envision a situation in which USA would even compromise. Even worse, your repeated insistence on USA being militarily "vastly superior" shows that you're completely trapped in the mythology and unable to imagine yourself in the your own actual position. USA doesn't win wars. We haven't won a war in my parents' lifetimes. What our military exists to do is spend money. That's why it always "wins" the yearly how-much-money-did-you-waste-on-weaponry competition: no one else is competing! In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, we have seen that regardless of the marketing, when USA attacks it does so without hope of obtaining any of its stated or unstated objectives. It's always just a bonfire of money and human lives.

jessaustin 6y ago

You seem unable to imagine yourself in anyone else's position. You hypothesize that Russia will always meekly back down, yet you can't envision a situation in which USA would even compromise. Even worse, your repeated insistence on USA being militarily "vastly superior" shows that you're completely trapped in the mythology and unable to imagine yourself in the your own actual position. USA doesn't win wars. We haven't won a war in my parents' lifetimes. What our military exists to do is spend money. That's why it always "wins" the yearly how-much-money-did-you-waste-on-weaponry competition: no one else is competing! In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, we have seen that regardless of the marketing, when USA attacks it does so without hope of obtaining any of its stated or unstated objectives. It's always just a bonfire of money and human lives.