3 ms·
Sorry, I was describing the post Cold War world in which we actually live. Pulling "counterfactuals" from a totally different era that is dramatically unlike ou
by alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry, I was describing the post Cold War world in which we actually live. Pulling "counterfactuals" from a totally different era that is dramatically unlike our own does nothing to disprove the logic that holds today. What next? Advocating a return to cavalry because it worked so well for Napoleon?
Reality is that we have enough conventional arms to obliterate any country that threatens us in any credible way. In addition to the world's most conventionally lethal military, we also have the world's biggest economy. Even if we did disarm dramatically (e.g. cutting the military budget in half and decommissioning all our nukes), no country could take advantage of that given how quickly we could rearm, if needed.
- rayiner 13y agoBut we're discussing what would be the case if the US gave up its nukes.
- alexqgb 13y agoOur economy will remain the world's largest and (for its size) the most open, which means pretty much everyone else's economies depend substantially on ours. Our military - even when limited to conventional arms - will remain the world's largest and most lethal. Our insanely advantageous geography (major oceans to the east and west, and our biggest trading partners to the north and south) won't shift an inch. We are safe. Very safe. We don't need nukes.
- rayiner 13y agoThey don't have to destroy our economy, just take out a city. Our conventional weapons would still dominate, but nukes are a great equalizer.
- dalke 13y agoIf nation X takes out a US city with nuclear weapons, we would dominate them with conventional weapons. I agree with that statement. How then does the US having nuclear weapons change things?
- alexqgb 13y agoOkay, let's think this through carefully: A country, using nuclear weapons, destroys a major American city, taking millions of American lives in the process. America still has at least ten other major cities spread across several time zones, along with the world's largest economy, which supports the world's most conventionally lethal military, which has over a thousand bases around the world. In spite of the attack, the country - in which three hundred million are still alive and kicking - remains very powerful and very rich. Only now, it's very, very angry. In this scenario, would you consider America to be (a) Unlikely to retaliate (b) Likely to retaliate in some limited way after long, anguished deliberation (c) Likely to retaliate swiftly, but on a strictly limited basis, or (d) Likely to firebomb whoever did it back to the stone age with extreme prejudice and absolutely zero hesitation or regret? Given that the obvious answer is D, how - exactly - is the nuclear weapon used in the attack an "equalizer"? Remember, that term is most commonly used in relation to handguns, which allow a smaller, weaker person to cripple or kill a much larger, stronger assailant. Key factor: cripple or kill, not "diminish only slightly while making volcanically furious." This, by the way, was a point made by Machiavelli. He strongly advised Princes against attacking others unless they planned to do so with such intensity that they could be sure that their opponents (and the sons of their opponents) would NEVER recover. "Nothing is more dangerous" he cautioned "than a lightly wounded enemy." In other words, destroying a city - even a major one - won't do. If you want to attack America and survive, you really do need to take down the entire economy. And it that's your goal, you should skip nuclear engineering altogether and just get a job on Wall Street.
- Spooky23 13y agoWhy a city? Use it against US naval forces, or strategic facilities. Or just light it up somewhere convenient.