5 ms·
"Peacekeeper" ICBM... the irony
by wutwutwat 3y ago
"Peacekeeper" ICBM... the irony
- krisoft 3y agoHow many did it kill?
- wutwutwat 3y agoI'm not talking about the test. I'm talking about an entire missile system designed to deliver nuclear payloads to anywhere in the world being dubbed "Peacekeeper", but you already knew that.
- krisoft 3y ago> I'm talking about an entire missile system designed to deliver nuclear payloads to anywhere in the world being dubbed "Peacekeeper" I'm also talking about the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile system. It was in service from 1986 to 2005. Did it ever needed to be used in anger or not? During that time did any military attack the nation which fielded it? If not I would say it lived up to its name.
- runjake 3y agoSeeing as the Peacekeeper hasn't killed anyone, the name seems pretty apt. The US nuclear program is about deterrence after all. Well, after 1945, anyway.
- wutwutwat 3y agoWeapon designed for use in a war or otherwise some sort of conflict requiring the use of lethal force, which would be the exact opposite of peace, is named peacekeeper These comments are being obtuse on purpose. Look at the name and look at what the name is on. The name peacekeeper is on a weapon that will only be used in times of no peace. Not a hard thing to see the irony in.
- runjake 3y agoI'm not being obtuse, I think we just have different views on how the world works. In my view, violence, or hopefully, just the threat of violence, maintains order. There are certain classes of people where diplomacy and pacifism just isn't going to work. Again, the post-1945 US nuclear program is about deterrence ("peace through superior firepower"). So, in that perspective, the Peacekeeper's threat of violence... kept the peace. The US and the Soviet Union/Russia both do not want to use nuclear weapons. Citation: Self. Was in the nuclear program during the latter days of the Cold War and shortly thereafter.
- pasabagi 3y agoIf you look at the rich history of nuclear near-misses through the cold war, I don't think there's any reason to feel secure in the idea that nuclear deterrence ensures peace. What it does do, is ensures that the consequences of war will be catastrophic, likely civilization-ending. Which, you know, is the dice we're going to be rolling from now on. Maybe we'll survive the next century, then maybe the next, but in the long term? Humans just don't have that good judgement.
- computerfriend 3y agoIs it any different to "peacekeepers" being soldiers?
- krisoft 3y ago> will only be used in times of no peace It is indeed a deadly weapon system. But it is used every second during peacetime too. Every second it is fielded it maintains a situation where the preferable choice of action is to not attack the one fielding it. In other words it is keeping the peace.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago[dead]
- jandrewrogers 3y agoYou are being obtuse to the fact that this missile's primary and explicit purpose was to be a compelling and credible strategic deterrent. The entire point of building it is was so that it would never need to be used. This is not a contradiction. Strategic deterrence is an effective way of keeping the peace as has been demonstrated throughout history. The name "peacekeeper" is a formal acknowledgement of its purpose in the military arsenal. It has no other role.
- kraquepype 3y agoI was just thinking about what the alternatives to nuclear would have been, had it not been created. (Purely hypothetical, as I know it would require a vastly different timeline of scientific discovery to avoid nuclear entirely.) Would we still have an equivalent war deterrent today without nuclear? What would it look like? My guess is something biological. My tongue-in-cheek guess would be something zoological (laser sharks anyone? pigeon pirahna hybrids?)
- runjake 3y agoMy guess is biological, too. And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear. Why? Lethality, ease of manufacture once figured out, mishandling of process or materials, lack of regulation, ethnic/DNA targeting, etc.
- qup 3y agoHard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
- wongarsu 3y agoThe only reason nuclear weapons are easy to pinpoint is because so few actors are capable of making them. If you had one you could load it onto a semi truck, drive into the middle of New York or Moscow and detonate it, with all evidence conveniently destroyed in the blast.
- runjake 3y agoKeep in mind that there are nuclear detection sensors deployed throughout the US and if you tried to roll a nuke-containing semi into New York, there would be a heavily-armed team trying to intercept you[1]. Supposedly[2], they are sensitive enough that it's untenable to transport enough lead around to shield it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration#Nonproliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Admi... 2. I have no inside info.
- ryandrake 3y agoThere have been many wars since 1945, and also since the development of this so-called "peacekeeper." Its existence is not doing a great job of keeping general peace. The only thing nuclear weapons seem to do is ensure their owners are always the aggressors in war and not defenders. Nobody wants to attack a country with nuclear weapons, so it enables them to pick and choose which wars to start.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- floatrock 3y agoyou'd have to be MAD to have it make sense
- a_gnostic 3y ago"It keeps the peace, in a dominating, intimidating sort of way."
- drno123 3y agoAmericans call their ICBM “peacekeeper”, while renaming Russian ICBM to “Satan”
- lupusreal 3y agoNATO reporting names use common starting letters for different categories of weapons. For surface-to-surface missiles all begin with the letter S. Most of the names chosen wouldn't raise eyebrows: Sapwood, Sasin, Sibling, Stone... Some of them seem to have an appreciative "cool factor": Skyfall, Saber, Stiletto... But generally there isn't a derogatory theme to these code names. For instance, codenames for fighter jets include Foxhound, Firebird, Fencer, and Felon. Some of these are really cool names that could have been given to western jets by marketting while others seem derogatory. There's not much of a pattern here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jamiek88 3y agoI've always thought the worst thing about ICBM's is the hypocrisy of the name too! But seriously these names are pretty much random, sometimes 'cool' sometimes not, just sequential NATO designations like Falcon, Felon, etc.
- moffkalast 3y agoNothing ironic about it, nukes have made their owning countries impervious to invasion. Peace through superior firepower as they say.
- ajuc 3y agoIt literally kept the peace?