4 ms·

Yes, but escalation from "attack a US aircraft carrier" to "nuke a US aircraft carrier" isn't linear. It represents a decision on the part of the attacker to a

by kjs3 13y ago

Yes, but escalation from "attack a US aircraft carrier" to "nuke a US aircraft carrier" isn't linear. It represents a decision on the part of the attacker to absorb a nuclear response from the US.

gaius 13y ago
You're using Cold War logic in a world of martyrdom.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The concept of noble martyrdom has been a tool used by the powerful to motivate footsoldiers since the dawn of time -- its not something new, or something that didn't exist during the Cold War.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Let's consider another scenario, the leadership of a country like Iran or North Korea successfully nukes a US aircraft carrier. Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Maybe... but maybe not.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Let's consider another scenario, the leadership of a country like Iran or North Korea successfully nukes a US aircraft carrier. Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Maybe not -- if the leadership of the US thought they had a more effective way of both dealing with those directly responsible for the attack and convincing the public that a sufficient response had been made. Of course, that probably wouldn't be any better for the leadership behind the attack than a nuclear strike that had greater collateral damage.
    - kjs3 13y ago
      Nuke a city? Perhaps not (although I'd get the fuck out of Tehran or Pongyang quick, just in case). Nuke every military base in the country? Much more likely. But more importantly, we would be able to do just about anything short of a chemical or biological attack, for as long as we wanted, under the guise of "restrained response to a nuclear attack".
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Nuke a city? Perhaps not (although I'd get the fuck out of Tehran or Pongyang quick, just in case). Nuke every military base in the country? Much more likely. The latter would probably involve several instances of the former.
        kjs3 13y ago
        Which is "collateral damage", not "nuking a city", in the propaganda game.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Nope. Not even if doing so saved the lives of twice as many killed. We'd pick the civilians off piecemeal with drones and other airstrikes, but not a nuke. The former is easy for politicians to justify ("terrorism!"); the latter requires conviction, the ability to plan several moves beyond the immediate crisis, and the capability to coherently explain and justify such actions to the American people. The individuals at the upper echelons of the civilian and military segments of the U.S. Government at present lack these traits. And this isn't exclusive to any one particular political party.

by kjs3 13y ago

Yes, but escalation from "attack a US aircraft carrier" to "nuke a US aircraft carrier" isn't linear. It represents a decision on the part of the attacker to absorb a nuclear response from the US.

gaius 13y ago

You're using Cold War logic in a world of martyrdom.

dragonwriter 13y ago
The concept of noble martyrdom has been a tool used by the powerful to motivate footsoldiers since the dawn of time -- its not something new, or something that didn't exist during the Cold War.
- gaius 13y ago
  Let's consider another scenario, the leadership of a country like Iran or North Korea successfully nukes a US aircraft carrier. Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Maybe... but maybe not.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Let's consider another scenario, the leadership of a country like Iran or North Korea successfully nukes a US aircraft carrier. Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Maybe not -- if the leadership of the US thought they had a more effective way of both dealing with those directly responsible for the attack and convincing the public that a sufficient response had been made. Of course, that probably wouldn't be any better for the leadership behind the attack than a nuclear strike that had greater collateral damage.
  - kjs3 13y ago
    Nuke a city? Perhaps not (although I'd get the fuck out of Tehran or Pongyang quick, just in case). Nuke every military base in the country? Much more likely. But more importantly, we would be able to do just about anything short of a chemical or biological attack, for as long as we wanted, under the guise of "restrained response to a nuclear attack".
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Nuke a city? Perhaps not (although I'd get the fuck out of Tehran or Pongyang quick, just in case). Nuke every military base in the country? Much more likely. The latter would probably involve several instances of the former.
      - kjs3 13y ago
        Which is "collateral damage", not "nuking a city", in the propaganda game.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Would the US respond by nuking a city full of civilians? Nope. Not even if doing so saved the lives of twice as many killed. We'd pick the civilians off piecemeal with drones and other airstrikes, but not a nuke. The former is easy for politicians to justify ("terrorism!"); the latter requires conviction, the ability to plan several moves beyond the immediate crisis, and the capability to coherently explain and justify such actions to the American people. The individuals at the upper echelons of the civilian and military segments of the U.S. Government at present lack these traits. And this isn't exclusive to any one particular political party.