4 ms·

You could probably wipe the whole US military excepting the nuclear program and not have to worry about anything except an internal coup d'etat/assassination sp

You could probably wipe the whole US military excepting the nuclear program and not have to worry about anything except an internal coup d'etat/assassination spree initiated by the mostly useless contractors/generals that get fired as a result. Does the nation run the army or does the army and its assorted industrial parasites run the nation? I doubt anyone in Washington has the testicular fortitude to find out. Criticism: "B-b-b-but you can't use nukes to put down internal rebellions(1) or bring liberty to the oppressed nations of the world(2)!!" Response to 1: "That's what the police+national guard is for." Response to 2: "Damn fucking straight."

icebraining 13y ago
So what would you do if a country with nuclear capabilities started attacking the US with conventional forces? Yes, Prime Minister has a funny scene about the nuclear deterrent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
- jonhohle 13y ago
  I was discussing hypothetical nuclear scenarios with a friend the other night and was genuinely wondering why the US even maintains their nuclear arsenal. Globally, would anyone stand for a nuclear attack on the US? If a smaller country or terrorist organization did initiate a nuclear attack on the US, would there be a nuclear response?
- larksimian 13y ago
  Nuke their conventional forces. They're coming by sea, right? Here, let's be hyper-paranoid and hang on to the drones and about half of the Air Force. It's still more than enough to wipe out any aggressive force before it can make landfall. This isn't the Middle Ages where pansy nobles played at war and had dinner together in between having their peasants butcher each other. If the US and Russia were to go to war it wouldn't be an honorable clash and if our tanks beat their tanks and our planes beat their planes well gosh darnit guess they give up Siberia. Here's a thought experiment: if India didn't have a strong conventional force in Kashmir and just threatened to use nukes on Pakistan if they invaded, would Pakistan call them on it? And if the Indians did toss a nuke, would Pakistan really respond and invite a few dozen others? Of course it plays better with the population to have war once in a while. Gives the illusion of change, drives a narrative and so on. But I doubt most major decision makers are crazy enough to risk prolonged nuclear exchange. The lesson I take from that video is maybe slightly different: Why go to war with the Soviets at all? Would my life as a British/US citizen be better with Gorbachev/the USSR in charge or would it be better after a prolonged nuclear exchange or would it be better after a decade of conventional World War 3? Freedom and independence are overrated and not being dead, starving and at war are underrated by modern societies to a staggering extent.

icebraining 13y ago

So what would you do if a country with nuclear capabilities started attacking the US with conventional forces? Yes, Prime Minister has a funny scene about the nuclear deterrent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

jonhohle 13y ago
I was discussing hypothetical nuclear scenarios with a friend the other night and was genuinely wondering why the US even maintains their nuclear arsenal. Globally, would anyone stand for a nuclear attack on the US? If a smaller country or terrorist organization did initiate a nuclear attack on the US, would there be a nuclear response?
larksimian 13y ago
Nuke their conventional forces. They're coming by sea, right? Here, let's be hyper-paranoid and hang on to the drones and about half of the Air Force. It's still more than enough to wipe out any aggressive force before it can make landfall. This isn't the Middle Ages where pansy nobles played at war and had dinner together in between having their peasants butcher each other. If the US and Russia were to go to war it wouldn't be an honorable clash and if our tanks beat their tanks and our planes beat their planes well gosh darnit guess they give up Siberia. Here's a thought experiment: if India didn't have a strong conventional force in Kashmir and just threatened to use nukes on Pakistan if they invaded, would Pakistan call them on it? And if the Indians did toss a nuke, would Pakistan really respond and invite a few dozen others? Of course it plays better with the population to have war once in a while. Gives the illusion of change, drives a narrative and so on. But I doubt most major decision makers are crazy enough to risk prolonged nuclear exchange. The lesson I take from that video is maybe slightly different: Why go to war with the Soviets at all? Would my life as a British/US citizen be better with Gorbachev/the USSR in charge or would it be better after a prolonged nuclear exchange or would it be better after a decade of conventional World War 3? Freedom and independence are overrated and not being dead, starving and at war are underrated by modern societies to a staggering extent.