4 ms·

It's many things. One is obviously deterrence, but mostly it's a show. We're reminding the world that we hold the key to our mutual destruction, which interesti

It's many things. One is obviously deterrence, but mostly it's a show. We're reminding the world that we hold the key to our mutual destruction, which interestingly leads to longer periods of peace (in a big picture kind of way). How many wars would the US have seen in the last 70 years if they didn't have nukes? They'd probably have been invaded by now and some US cities may not even exist or would be rebuilt very differently (maybe we'd have better infrastructure by now :) ). Things would be very different without nukes. We take them for granted, but shows like this are necessary to keep things in check, because an alternative reminder would be a detonation of one of these things, and with the exception of some lunatics, most don't want to see them go off. The other part is that these projects are pretty much jobs programs for the masses of engineers and phds that we keep cranking out without a very good idea of what to do with all this intellectual capital. It's a very expensive jobs program granted, and they serve the purpose of maintaining the military industrial complex. Could this money be better spent? Absolutely. Do we have a sufficient majority to vote for structural reforms? Nope. So bombs it is then until enough people vote against it.

faeyanpiraat 6y ago
I'm not trying to nitpick, just curious about how this works? Some years pass, and the russians just forget that the US have nukes? Then they start planning an invasion, but cancel it after they read in the "new york times" about some modernization effort, and remember that the us still have nukes?
- raziel2701 6y ago
  It's a display of power. We've been stuck in a certain mindset from the Cold War and habits are hard to break. Over time we've dialed back on the heat (we don't do live tests anymore for instance and we are not actively developing new warheads). But there's still a whole military industrial complex that is not going to go away anytime soon. So you do this new missile. It keeps people employed, it shallowly reminds other powers that we're still doing perfunctory defense stuff.
samatman 6y ago
America was last invaded in 1812, so it's not at all clear to me that, absent nuclear weapons, it would have been invaded in the latter half of the 1900s. Their absence would have made a conventional war in Europe with the USSR more likely, and perhaps this would have lead to an invasion of Alaska. I don't see a scenario where any credible belligerent could have projected power into the US mainland. I do agree that the net effect of nuclear weapons has been less human death, including of US citizens. But invasion is farfetched.
- raziel2701 6y ago
  You could get Latin America to go in with proper support from other nations. The US went on a power trip squashing socialist governments there throughout the second half of the 20th century. I think the ingredients were there. It just takes a more active imagination.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Counterfactual history is a fun game, but there aren't any rules. I think it's more likely, for instance, that Cuba would have just been invaded and 'restored' after its Communist revolution, since the Russians wouldn't have had the ability to project the kind of power that they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like, who knows? Maybe Colombia would have conquered the entire Spanish speaking world and tried the Rio Grande.

faeyanpiraat 6y ago

I'm not trying to nitpick, just curious about how this works? Some years pass, and the russians just forget that the US have nukes? Then they start planning an invasion, but cancel it after they read in the "new york times" about some modernization effort, and remember that the us still have nukes?

raziel2701 6y ago
It's a display of power. We've been stuck in a certain mindset from the Cold War and habits are hard to break. Over time we've dialed back on the heat (we don't do live tests anymore for instance and we are not actively developing new warheads). But there's still a whole military industrial complex that is not going to go away anytime soon. So you do this new missile. It keeps people employed, it shallowly reminds other powers that we're still doing perfunctory defense stuff.

samatman 6y ago

America was last invaded in 1812, so it's not at all clear to me that, absent nuclear weapons, it would have been invaded in the latter half of the 1900s. Their absence would have made a conventional war in Europe with the USSR more likely, and perhaps this would have lead to an invasion of Alaska. I don't see a scenario where any credible belligerent could have projected power into the US mainland. I do agree that the net effect of nuclear weapons has been less human death, including of US citizens. But invasion is farfetched.

raziel2701 6y ago
You could get Latin America to go in with proper support from other nations. The US went on a power trip squashing socialist governments there throughout the second half of the 20th century. I think the ingredients were there. It just takes a more active imagination.
- samatman 6y ago
  Counterfactual history is a fun game, but there aren't any rules. I think it's more likely, for instance, that Cuba would have just been invaded and 'restored' after its Communist revolution, since the Russians wouldn't have had the ability to project the kind of power that they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like, who knows? Maybe Colombia would have conquered the entire Spanish speaking world and tried the Rio Grande.