5 ms·

Uh, no. Also, as noted, the economic gulf between the US and the middle east is so great that it would be impossible for them to secure a decisive nuclear advan

by alexqgb 13y ago

Uh, no. Also, as noted, the economic gulf between the US and the middle east is so great that it would be impossible for them to secure a decisive nuclear advantage before an even fully-disarmed America could re-arm and recreated the MAD situation once again.

philwelch 13y ago
So Iran is working on building weapons right now, does that mean we should voluntarily disarm and then immediately rearm because we already know they're developing a nuclear capacity? Alternately, do we really want to give Russia, China, Pakistan and India the power to dictate terms to us and our allies?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  We're not going to nuke Tehran. Full stop. Even if the Iranians detonated a nuke in Times Square (which, come on), we wouldn't respond with a mass atrocity of our own. We'd invade, yes. And we'd absofuckinglutly destroy the Revolutionary Guard. But indiscriminate mass murder extending into the millions? Get real. Also, how does having nuclear arms allow these countries to "dictate terms" to us our allies? What, sign this trade deal or we'll nuke you? Even without nuclear arms, the Pentagon runs the largest and most lethal military force ever assembled in all of human existence. So yes, we're perfectly safe without our nukes, even if others have them. Also, we're rich enough and technologically sophisticated enough to rebuild our stocks very, very quickly if anyone is foolish enough to threaten us with armageddon. But again, why bother, when we have so many other ways to respond?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    > We're not going to nuke Tehran. Full stop. It's not whether we are, it's whether they think we might. > Even without nuclear arms, the Pentagon runs the largest and most lethal military force ever assembled in all of human existence Well, not without nukes. I'd bet on Russia or China's nukes over the US conventional military any day. > Also, how does having nuclear arms allow these countries to "dictate terms" to us our allies? What, sign this trade deal or we'll nuke you? There's a quote about this from the 90's when we were trying to use our conventional military to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, something like "in the end, you care about Los Angeles a lot more than you care about Taipei". It means that the US can't just start a war with China or threaten them with nuclear attack because a state of MAD exists. And your solution is that we should empower China to threaten us? Because whether or not we have nuclear weapons, China still knows we care about Los Angeles more than Taipei.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      > It's not whether we are, it's whether they think we might. No, what they're thinking is "If we attack America, or allow America to be attacked with nuclear arms we supply, will we end up dead as a result?" And the very obvious answer is "Yes, yes you will. And if you try to disappear with your families, they will probably die too." American military commanders do not regard leaders of the Revolutionary Guard as social equals with whom they share the bonds of class. They will hunt them and kill them like animals. We know it. They know it. Everybody knows it. >Well, not without nukes. I'd bet on Russia or China's nukes over the US conventional military any day. To do what? Protect Iran from retaliation? Thanks to economic integration, neither country could afford to harm America this severely. China especially. The larger point is that, even without nukes, we are an exceedingly dangerous country to attack. While the American people can and do balk at the prospect of constant aggression coming from the hawks in Washington, they can be counted on to support absolutely devastating levels of violence if attacked directly. > It means that the US can't just start a war with China or threaten them with nuclear attack because a state of MAD exists. No, threatening one city is not 'destruction' in the MAD sense. Mutually Assured Destruction is the logical outcome of nuclear conflict in which the only way to avoid retaliation is to wipe the enemy off the map, in a surprise first-strike. The Nuclear Triad was developed as a counter-strategy to ensure that this wasn't possible. Even if a Soviet first-strike did leave every man, woman, and child dead, the Triad (composed of ICBMs, perpetually-airborne fleets of B-52s and several Trident subs) meant we'd still retain the power to respond in kind. The exchange would mark the last act of both nations. In essence, it was a suicide pact that treated the rest of humanity as collateral damage. That's not even remotely close to what was being promised in the conversation over Taiwan. More to the point, the conversation didn't end there, since China cares about having the US as a market more than it cares about having Taiwan as a provence.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        It's not about Iran. Forget Iran. MAD works as a method of keeping the peace between Russia, China, and the USA and it would be a humanitarian disaster to eliminate that bulwark of world peace by disarming any of the three. The conversation clearly didn't end there because the Chinese changed tactics with Taiwan (they're actually talking to each other sometimes) and our aircraft carriers sailed away from the Taiwan Straits. It was more their way of saying "you can't dictate terms to us" rather than "we will dictate terms to you".

by alexqgb 13y ago

philwelch 13y ago

So Iran is working on building weapons right now, does that mean we should voluntarily disarm and then immediately rearm because we already know they're developing a nuclear capacity? Alternately, do we really want to give Russia, China, Pakistan and India the power to dictate terms to us and our allies?

alexqgb 13y ago
We're not going to nuke Tehran. Full stop. Even if the Iranians detonated a nuke in Times Square (which, come on), we wouldn't respond with a mass atrocity of our own. We'd invade, yes. And we'd absofuckinglutly destroy the Revolutionary Guard. But indiscriminate mass murder extending into the millions? Get real. Also, how does having nuclear arms allow these countries to "dictate terms" to us our allies? What, sign this trade deal or we'll nuke you? Even without nuclear arms, the Pentagon runs the largest and most lethal military force ever assembled in all of human existence. So yes, we're perfectly safe without our nukes, even if others have them. Also, we're rich enough and technologically sophisticated enough to rebuild our stocks very, very quickly if anyone is foolish enough to threaten us with armageddon. But again, why bother, when we have so many other ways to respond?
- philwelch 13y ago
  > We're not going to nuke Tehran. Full stop. It's not whether we are, it's whether they think we might. > Even without nuclear arms, the Pentagon runs the largest and most lethal military force ever assembled in all of human existence Well, not without nukes. I'd bet on Russia or China's nukes over the US conventional military any day. > Also, how does having nuclear arms allow these countries to "dictate terms" to us our allies? What, sign this trade deal or we'll nuke you? There's a quote about this from the 90's when we were trying to use our conventional military to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, something like "in the end, you care about Los Angeles a lot more than you care about Taipei". It means that the US can't just start a war with China or threaten them with nuclear attack because a state of MAD exists. And your solution is that we should empower China to threaten us? Because whether or not we have nuclear weapons, China still knows we care about Los Angeles more than Taipei.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    > It's not whether we are, it's whether they think we might. No, what they're thinking is "If we attack America, or allow America to be attacked with nuclear arms we supply, will we end up dead as a result?" And the very obvious answer is "Yes, yes you will. And if you try to disappear with your families, they will probably die too." American military commanders do not regard leaders of the Revolutionary Guard as social equals with whom they share the bonds of class. They will hunt them and kill them like animals. We know it. They know it. Everybody knows it. >Well, not without nukes. I'd bet on Russia or China's nukes over the US conventional military any day. To do what? Protect Iran from retaliation? Thanks to economic integration, neither country could afford to harm America this severely. China especially. The larger point is that, even without nukes, we are an exceedingly dangerous country to attack. While the American people can and do balk at the prospect of constant aggression coming from the hawks in Washington, they can be counted on to support absolutely devastating levels of violence if attacked directly. > It means that the US can't just start a war with China or threaten them with nuclear attack because a state of MAD exists. No, threatening one city is not 'destruction' in the MAD sense. Mutually Assured Destruction is the logical outcome of nuclear conflict in which the only way to avoid retaliation is to wipe the enemy off the map, in a surprise first-strike. The Nuclear Triad was developed as a counter-strategy to ensure that this wasn't possible. Even if a Soviet first-strike did leave every man, woman, and child dead, the Triad (composed of ICBMs, perpetually-airborne fleets of B-52s and several Trident subs) meant we'd still retain the power to respond in kind. The exchange would mark the last act of both nations. In essence, it was a suicide pact that treated the rest of humanity as collateral damage. That's not even remotely close to what was being promised in the conversation over Taiwan. More to the point, the conversation didn't end there, since China cares about having the US as a market more than it cares about having Taiwan as a provence.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      It's not about Iran. Forget Iran. MAD works as a method of keeping the peace between Russia, China, and the USA and it would be a humanitarian disaster to eliminate that bulwark of world peace by disarming any of the three. The conversation clearly didn't end there because the Chinese changed tactics with Taiwan (they're actually talking to each other sometimes) and our aircraft carriers sailed away from the Taiwan Straits. It was more their way of saying "you can't dictate terms to us" rather than "we will dictate terms to you".