5 ms·

So do nuclear weapons I suppose.

by cliffy 18y ago

kirse 18y ago
That's why I'm never really worried by some specific country out East getting a few nukes. Good ol' MAD ensures they'll be turned into a glass parking lot as soon as they so much as breathe on the launch button. Obviously it becomes an issue when individual terrorists can get their hands on nukes, because then there's no country to flatten in response to such an atrocity. All of this is under the assumption that war is a necessity.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Or when nations use terrorists and other non-state actors (such as mercenaries) to launch attacks without taking ownership. When you had 5 nuclear powers, it was pretty easy to figure out who was bombing you. When you have 25, MAD doesn't work any more. Somewhere in between the word "mutual" loses cohesion. (unless you plan on bombing every nuclear country in the world in response to any nuclear attack, which seems politically a no-no)
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- markessien 18y ago
  I don't understand your logic. Why would you want to respond to mass death by imposing mass death? Why would you want to 'flatten' a country? Whatever the reason for a nuclear attack, it was not decided by a country, it was decided by a small group of people. Destroying an entire country of 10 or 20 million would be a barbaric and completely counter-productive answer to a nuclear strike.
  - kirse 18y ago
    What I'm saying was that if it was clearly identifiable that a country was responsible for an attack (ex. country declares war on Israel, fires nuke), then they deserve to be ruined. It's not that I'm advocating going around tossing nukes at the home country of a single terrorist or group, I was just addressing the specific issue where we're so worried about X or Y country acquiring nuclear weapons. If that country would ever use them as part of a declared war on our allies, then they'd deserve what came to them. But as I (and Dan above noted), the real issue is if individuals sneak these weapons around and cause mass destruction - who deserves the response to that atrocity?
    - markessien 18y ago
      So if Saddam decided to throw a nuclear bomb at some country, all Iraqis would have been responsible for this? And you advocate wiping them all out? Is the president, in this case, any different from a terrorist? Particularly an unelected president - one who cannot be said to represent the members of his country. People don't 'deserve' death because someone in their neighbourhood did something bad. It is attitudes like 'countries deserve to be ruined' that cause world wars. The U.S, without being provoked, declared war on Iraq and caused the death of 600.000 Iraqis. Do 600.000 U.S citizens now 'deserve' to die? Think before repeat things, even if you grew up hearing them.

So do nuclear weapons I suppose.

by cliffy 18y ago

So do nuclear weapons I suppose.

kirse 18y ago

That's why I'm never really worried by some specific country out East getting a few nukes. Good ol' MAD ensures they'll be turned into a glass parking lot as soon as they so much as breathe on the launch button. Obviously it becomes an issue when individual terrorists can get their hands on nukes, because then there's no country to flatten in response to such an atrocity. All of this is under the assumption that war is a necessity.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Or when nations use terrorists and other non-state actors (such as mercenaries) to launch attacks without taking ownership. When you had 5 nuclear powers, it was pretty easy to figure out who was bombing you. When you have 25, MAD doesn't work any more. Somewhere in between the word "mutual" loses cohesion. (unless you plan on bombing every nuclear country in the world in response to any nuclear attack, which seems politically a no-no)
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
markessien 18y ago
I don't understand your logic. Why would you want to respond to mass death by imposing mass death? Why would you want to 'flatten' a country? Whatever the reason for a nuclear attack, it was not decided by a country, it was decided by a small group of people. Destroying an entire country of 10 or 20 million would be a barbaric and completely counter-productive answer to a nuclear strike.
- kirse 18y ago
  What I'm saying was that if it was clearly identifiable that a country was responsible for an attack (ex. country declares war on Israel, fires nuke), then they deserve to be ruined. It's not that I'm advocating going around tossing nukes at the home country of a single terrorist or group, I was just addressing the specific issue where we're so worried about X or Y country acquiring nuclear weapons. If that country would ever use them as part of a declared war on our allies, then they'd deserve what came to them. But as I (and Dan above noted), the real issue is if individuals sneak these weapons around and cause mass destruction - who deserves the response to that atrocity?
  - markessien 18y ago
    So if Saddam decided to throw a nuclear bomb at some country, all Iraqis would have been responsible for this? And you advocate wiping them all out? Is the president, in this case, any different from a terrorist? Particularly an unelected president - one who cannot be said to represent the members of his country. People don't 'deserve' death because someone in their neighbourhood did something bad. It is attitudes like 'countries deserve to be ruined' that cause world wars. The U.S, without being provoked, declared war on Iraq and caused the death of 600.000 Iraqis. Do 600.000 U.S citizens now 'deserve' to die? Think before repeat things, even if you grew up hearing them.