4 ms·

But really, how much more do you want? The US upped the ante several times, developing all kinds of more advanced super weapons, as well as modes of delivery, t

But really, how much more do you want? The US upped the ante several times, developing all kinds of more advanced super weapons, as well as modes of delivery, the first long range bombers, the Hydrogen bomb, ICBM's, MIRV, the Neutron bomb ... I mean, as you say it was FAR beyond the early atomic weapons. And they're continuing with development, in secret of course ...

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Americans keep developing their missile shield so China and Russia need to keep developing ways to outsmart it. It will never end.
- vkou 5y ago
  A missile shield that actually works will actually precipitate a nuclear conflict, because it means an end to MAD. If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Optimistically, military planners are aware of this, and are just doing pork barrel spending. Pessimistically, military planners don't care about this, and are actively working on 'winning' a nuclear war.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    This doesn't really follow IMO and is a result of deep oversimplifications. Even if you make those simplifications though: If your choices are pre-emptive strike where MAD applies now (near-total destruction) vs. live to 3 months from now, where you have a post-MAD world where one adversary dominates, the post-MAD dominant adversary no longer has the incentive to pre-emptively strike since they aren't worried about a pre-emptive strike from their adversaries since they'd have an effective missile defense system.
  - joconde 5y ago
    > If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Striking today means MAD happens and your country gets wasted. That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. The 3 big nuclear powers don't seem to be that stupid. Maybe the calculus would be different with Israel vs Iran or India vs Pakistan, where the conflict has religious aspects.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. It's difficult to assure your counterparty that you will never behave in a psychotic manner in the future - or to assure yourself that they will not. If you're not planning on starting a nuclear war, and you assume that your adversary isn't going to, either, why do you need a missile shield, anyways? MAD is a necessary and sufficient deterrent. If you're building a shield, you are very conspicuously betting that at least one of these two assumptions is no longer true...
      - joconde 5y ago
        > Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. These assumptions better be strongly supported by evidence, if one's going to decide to get their country annihilated by attempting a first strike. Striking first won't protect the country from a hypothetical future attack, it will just make it happen now. I don't really see a sane reason to do it if the threat isn't considered immediate.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Which is precisely why during the Cold War there was a treaty limiting anti-missile defence (ABM Treaty). Who wants to guess which side withdrew from it in 2002 under a war criminal leader?
  - nix23 5y ago
    It could not be one of the NATO states...i mean the nato is to preserve freedom...right? :)

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Americans keep developing their missile shield so China and Russia need to keep developing ways to outsmart it. It will never end.

vkou 5y ago
A missile shield that actually works will actually precipitate a nuclear conflict, because it means an end to MAD. If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Optimistically, military planners are aware of this, and are just doing pork barrel spending. Pessimistically, military planners don't care about this, and are actively working on 'winning' a nuclear war.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  This doesn't really follow IMO and is a result of deep oversimplifications. Even if you make those simplifications though: If your choices are pre-emptive strike where MAD applies now (near-total destruction) vs. live to 3 months from now, where you have a post-MAD world where one adversary dominates, the post-MAD dominant adversary no longer has the incentive to pre-emptively strike since they aren't worried about a pre-emptive strike from their adversaries since they'd have an effective missile defense system.
- joconde 5y ago
  > If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Striking today means MAD happens and your country gets wasted. That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. The 3 big nuclear powers don't seem to be that stupid. Maybe the calculus would be different with Israel vs Iran or India vs Pakistan, where the conflict has religious aspects.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. It's difficult to assure your counterparty that you will never behave in a psychotic manner in the future - or to assure yourself that they will not. If you're not planning on starting a nuclear war, and you assume that your adversary isn't going to, either, why do you need a missile shield, anyways? MAD is a necessary and sufficient deterrent. If you're building a shield, you are very conspicuously betting that at least one of these two assumptions is no longer true...
    - joconde 5y ago
      > Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. These assumptions better be strongly supported by evidence, if one's going to decide to get their country annihilated by attempting a first strike. Striking first won't protect the country from a hypothetical future attack, it will just make it happen now. I don't really see a sane reason to do it if the threat isn't considered immediate.
sofixa 5y ago
Which is precisely why during the Cold War there was a treaty limiting anti-missile defence (ABM Treaty). Who wants to guess which side withdrew from it in 2002 under a war criminal leader?
- nix23 5y ago
  It could not be one of the NATO states...i mean the nato is to preserve freedom...right? :)