5 ms·

Seeing 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 ago
Weapon 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    If 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 ago
  Is 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 ago
  You 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.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum If you want peace, prepare for war. Or as Roosevelt put it, speak softly and carry a big stick. Building an incredibly powerful weapon and calling it "Peacekeeper" is meant to strongly imply that we don't plan on using it, but rather, it's symbolic as a preemptive threat against any would-be attackers. Peace is kept by showing that any attack would be retaliated with overwhelming force.
- PKop 3y ago
  If you can't conceive of some adversary being aggressive if they perceive you as weak, then you don't understand geopolitics or history. So yes, credible deterrence by means of a powerful destructive weapon can prevent war and maintain some level of peace particularly in preventing large scale war between large industrial powers. What else does maintain peace besides power? The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. If you want peace prepare for war. Do you think these are just famous slogans or they really do reflect some hard earned wisdom?
- lupusreal 3y ago
  The weapon is used by not being used. It's purpose is to be a threat. It has been in continuous use ever since it entered service.
kraquepype 3y ago
I 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 ago
  My 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 ago
    Hard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      The 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 ago
        Keep 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 ago
There 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.

wutwutwat 3y ago

Weapon 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 ago
I'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 ago
  If 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 ago
Is 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 ago
You 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.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum If you want peace, prepare for war. Or as Roosevelt put it, speak softly and carry a big stick. Building an incredibly powerful weapon and calling it "Peacekeeper" is meant to strongly imply that we don't plan on using it, but rather, it's symbolic as a preemptive threat against any would-be attackers. Peace is kept by showing that any attack would be retaliated with overwhelming force.
PKop 3y ago
If you can't conceive of some adversary being aggressive if they perceive you as weak, then you don't understand geopolitics or history. So yes, credible deterrence by means of a powerful destructive weapon can prevent war and maintain some level of peace particularly in preventing large scale war between large industrial powers. What else does maintain peace besides power? The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. If you want peace prepare for war. Do you think these are just famous slogans or they really do reflect some hard earned wisdom?
lupusreal 3y ago
The weapon is used by not being used. It's purpose is to be a threat. It has been in continuous use ever since it entered service.

kraquepype 3y ago

I 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 ago
My 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 ago
  Hard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    The 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 ago
      Keep 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 ago

There 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.