5 ms·

> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and r

> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from another major world power... You are very mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Ownership of missile silos with nuclear warheads reduces chances of attack by a foreign power by such a huge amount that domestic unrest becomes a more realistic threat.

lionhearted 15y ago
> You are mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Actually, I think you're mistaken, but let's think this through - There's 200 countries in the world, roughly. Call the current world powers America, China, UK, Russia, and maybe a couple other European countries. In any given year, there's a lot more chance of any given country having a riot/unrest than there is an attack by America, China, UK, or Russia. Like, much higher. And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. If you like, you can add in places with a decent mix of either high troop strength or very technologically advanced military - even adding in places like North Korea, Iraq before losing its various recent wars, and Israel doesn't seem to change the numbers that much. The chance of serious unrest in any given country in the world is much higher than the chance of attack by a militarily powerful nation. We could check actual numbers if this isn't convincing, but the number of domestic insurrections every year are much higher than attacks by a major world power. And also, those usually come with more telegraphing beforehand than domestic unrest does.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. > And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. The key word is "usually". How usually is usually? When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning? There was none. True, major attacks are rare, but when they do come, I would say about 50% of them are without warning. Yes, they are usually preceded by some diplomatic hostility, but not always. There were some 45 years of diplomatic hostility between the US and the USSR, yet there was no attack. But the biggest thing you are missing is this: attacks on a major power by another major power are rare precisely because the country being attacked is a major power. Attacks of a major power on a minor country happen about every five years or so if recent history is any guide.
  - Helianthus 15y ago
    >You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. Side note from the referee: writing is a form of thinking things through, and even if it isn't you're distracting from the issue. 5 yard deduction and 2 minutes in the penalty box, plus parent gets a free shot.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    "When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning?" Stalin had plenty of advance warning - there were even people defecting from the German ranks and telling them that the Germans were coming (they were probably shot for their troubles). Even after the invasion started Stalin refused to believe the reports coming from frontline units for a long time after the invasion started. See: http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      Intelligence information is speculative and absolutely cannot be compared to an official warning.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - bluekeybox 15y ago
        Don't understand the downvotes, but just to explain: with intelligence information, there is always a possibility that it could have come from an unreliable source or a source who purposefully tried to mislead. With an official ultimatum such an ambiguity is absent.
      - jamesaguilar 15y ago
        "official warning" Does this mean you would only count it as a "warning" if the Nazis actually sent an envoy that said, "Hey, we're coming for you now?"
  - ghshephard 15y ago
william42 15y ago
I don't see how the argument is circular.

lionhearted 15y ago

> You are mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Actually, I think you're mistaken, but let's think this through - There's 200 countries in the world, roughly. Call the current world powers America, China, UK, Russia, and maybe a couple other European countries. In any given year, there's a lot more chance of any given country having a riot/unrest than there is an attack by America, China, UK, or Russia. Like, much higher. And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. If you like, you can add in places with a decent mix of either high troop strength or very technologically advanced military - even adding in places like North Korea, Iraq before losing its various recent wars, and Israel doesn't seem to change the numbers that much. The chance of serious unrest in any given country in the world is much higher than the chance of attack by a militarily powerful nation. We could check actual numbers if this isn't convincing, but the number of domestic insurrections every year are much higher than attacks by a major world power. And also, those usually come with more telegraphing beforehand than domestic unrest does.

bluekeybox 15y ago
You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. > And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. The key word is "usually". How usually is usually? When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning? There was none. True, major attacks are rare, but when they do come, I would say about 50% of them are without warning. Yes, they are usually preceded by some diplomatic hostility, but not always. There were some 45 years of diplomatic hostility between the US and the USSR, yet there was no attack. But the biggest thing you are missing is this: attacks on a major power by another major power are rare precisely because the country being attacked is a major power. Attacks of a major power on a minor country happen about every five years or so if recent history is any guide.
- Helianthus 15y ago
  >You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. Side note from the referee: writing is a form of thinking things through, and even if it isn't you're distracting from the issue. 5 yard deduction and 2 minutes in the penalty box, plus parent gets a free shot.
- arethuza 15y ago
  "When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning?" Stalin had plenty of advance warning - there were even people defecting from the German ranks and telling them that the Germans were coming (they were probably shot for their troubles). Even after the invasion started Stalin refused to believe the reports coming from frontline units for a long time after the invasion started. See: http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    Intelligence information is speculative and absolutely cannot be compared to an official warning.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      Don't understand the downvotes, but just to explain: with intelligence information, there is always a possibility that it could have come from an unreliable source or a source who purposefully tried to mislead. With an official ultimatum such an ambiguity is absent.
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      "official warning" Does this mean you would only count it as a "warning" if the Nazis actually sent an envoy that said, "Hey, we're coming for you now?"
- ghshephard 15y ago

william42 15y ago

I don't see how the argument is circular.