6 ms·

How is he crazy? When nukes are on the table either you implement a MAD-like policy or you die in nuclear fire. There's no real middle ground with weapons this

How is he crazy? When nukes are on the table either you implement a MAD-like policy or you die in nuclear fire. There's no real middle ground with weapons this powerful. Its rational to support MAD. Thus far, its working. A lot of human warfare is on its face is crazy sounding, but has a rational backing. >when you read about plans like this you just start contemplating about the end of humans as a species. We called up the USSR and asked them to stop producing weapons on that scale. They laughed in our face. What exactly do you propose? Heck, the USSR's client states were motivated to nuke us without warning. Castro had a pretty big hard-on for launching nukes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22nuke.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22nuke.html?_r=0 He wasn't convinced by the loss of life or anything. His Moscow handlers had to explain to him that the radioactive cloud would be bad for Cubans. Heck, the politburo was demanding WWIII from Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. Today, Russia maintains an openly published first strike policy on what it calles "tactical nukes." Essentially they say they can launch nukes whenever they feel like it and not consider it a MAD violation. So if Putin's conventional troops are losing, he just nukes the opposition. With madmen like Putin running nukes, MAD makes sense. Its the only thing that does.

stox 12y ago
Edward wasn't crazy, he was just very focused. As for Putin, weren't we doing much the same under GW when we decided we were going to ignore the ABM treaty? BTW, the 10GT design was to be used for asteroid defence. Edward should have won the Nobel prize, he succeeded in designing a weapon so horrible it has never been used in warfare.
acqq 12y ago
> How is he crazy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller "during Oppenheimer's trial he was the only member of the scientific community to state that Oppenheimer should not be granted security clearance" "One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor more than a mile long and half a mile wide to use for shipment of resources from coal and oil fields through Point Hope, Alaska." "Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him as blaming it on Jane Fonda" "In the 1980s, Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derided by critics as "Star Wars," the concept of using ground and satellite-based lasers, particle beams and missiles to destroy incoming Soviet ICBMs." A few megadeaths here-or-there. The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand. Yes, you can call him "just focused" if you prefer that. Let him "peacefully" dig in your backyard.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor Russians used nukes for mining. Its not magic. You can manage fall-out, risk, etc. Its not "crazy." >"Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him as blaming it on Jane Fonda" A 70+ year old man being a difficult curmudgeon? Say, it ain't so! > Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) SDI made sense. We still have SDI. Now we call its "Strategic Missile Defense" and its our biggest counter against rogue nation nuke launches and other attacks. It also has Putin scared as he can't match it and is demanding we don't continue to build new sites in Eastern Europe out of desperation. >The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand. I really wish more people understood the world from the lessons of history instead of caricutures from Hollywood movies.
  - gcb0 12y ago
    The US actually used more nukes for mining then the russians. WAY more. the russians had the more accidents, though. but the US also had it share of radioactive underground rivers as a result. there is a list on wikipedia
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      This article (which presumably includes mining related activities for both countries): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion puts the score at US: 28, USSR: 237. Combining the 25 intensification and 22 storage explosions here presumably gets you past the US total of peaceful nuclear explosions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nati... Are there more articles that you would suggest?
  - Pinckney 12y ago
    If you buy the idea that MAD is rational, how can you also support SDI? Do you want a nuclear first strike to be a viable option?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Its rational to support MAD. Thus far, its working. Since WWII, none of the countries not engaging in MAD (e.g., all those that lack the capacity to do so), including those with no nuclear-power allies, have been attacked with nuclear weapons. So, while none of those engaging in MAD has been either, there is no evidence that MAD is the reason for that. It's Lisa Simpson's tiger-repelling rock all over again.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  That's beyond ridiculous. No one has been attacked by nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons have forced our leaders to resort to diplomacy, except when attacking countries that are too small to require nukes. This is, on the whole, a GOOD thing.
danbruc 12y ago
You make it sound like the USA provides a textbook example of sanity and benevolent behavior.
njharman 12y ago
> you implement a MAD-like policy or you die in nuclear fire This assumes that some "other side" is willing to destroy 1/3 of the Earth just to "get you". A ludicrous supposition only believed by hawks and ideologues.
yongjik 12y ago
Eh, how does a 10Gt bomb support MAD? MAD is mutual assured destruction: it works because both sides have a comparable power. Equipping one side with 10Gt weapons when the other side has "only" 10Mt-level weapons isn't MAD, it's madness. That is, unless your goal is not MAD at all, but the nuclear destruction of the other side by your side. A prospect that Teller didn't find too horrible, I guess.

stox 12y ago

Edward wasn't crazy, he was just very focused. As for Putin, weren't we doing much the same under GW when we decided we were going to ignore the ABM treaty? BTW, the 10GT design was to be used for asteroid defence. Edward should have won the Nobel prize, he succeeded in designing a weapon so horrible it has never been used in warfare.

acqq 12y ago

> How is he crazy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller "during Oppenheimer's trial he was the only member of the scientific community to state that Oppenheimer should not be granted security clearance" "One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor more than a mile long and half a mile wide to use for shipment of resources from coal and oil fields through Point Hope, Alaska." "Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him as blaming it on Jane Fonda" "In the 1980s, Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), derided by critics as "Star Wars," the concept of using ground and satellite-based lasers, particle beams and missiles to destroy incoming Soviet ICBMs." A few megadeaths here-or-there. The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand. Yes, you can call him "just focused" if you prefer that. Let him "peacefully" dig in your backyard.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>One of the most controversial projects he proposed was a plan to use a multi-megaton hydrogen bomb to dig a deep-water harbor Russians used nukes for mining. Its not magic. You can manage fall-out, risk, etc. Its not "crazy." >"Teller suffered a heart attack in 1979, and many observers[71] described him as blaming it on Jane Fonda" A 70+ year old man being a difficult curmudgeon? Say, it ain't so! > Teller began a strong campaign for what was later called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) SDI made sense. We still have SDI. Now we call its "Strategic Missile Defense" and its our biggest counter against rogue nation nuke launches and other attacks. It also has Putin scared as he can't match it and is demanding we don't continue to build new sites in Eastern Europe out of desperation. >The only thing missing from Dr Strangelove is having the uncontrollable hand. I really wish more people understood the world from the lessons of history instead of caricutures from Hollywood movies.
- gcb0 12y ago
  The US actually used more nukes for mining then the russians. WAY more. the russians had the more accidents, though. but the US also had it share of radioactive underground rivers as a result. there is a list on wikipedia
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    This article (which presumably includes mining related activities for both countries): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion puts the score at US: 28, USSR: 237. Combining the 25 intensification and 22 storage explosions here presumably gets you past the US total of peaceful nuclear explosions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nati... Are there more articles that you would suggest?
- Pinckney 12y ago
  If you buy the idea that MAD is rational, how can you also support SDI? Do you want a nuclear first strike to be a viable option?

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Its rational to support MAD. Thus far, its working. Since WWII, none of the countries not engaging in MAD (e.g., all those that lack the capacity to do so), including those with no nuclear-power allies, have been attacked with nuclear weapons. So, while none of those engaging in MAD has been either, there is no evidence that MAD is the reason for that. It's Lisa Simpson's tiger-repelling rock all over again.

CamperBob2 12y ago
That's beyond ridiculous. No one has been attacked by nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons have forced our leaders to resort to diplomacy, except when attacking countries that are too small to require nukes. This is, on the whole, a GOOD thing.

danbruc 12y ago

You make it sound like the USA provides a textbook example of sanity and benevolent behavior.

njharman 12y ago

> you implement a MAD-like policy or you die in nuclear fire This assumes that some "other side" is willing to destroy 1/3 of the Earth just to "get you". A ludicrous supposition only believed by hawks and ideologues.

yongjik 12y ago

Eh, how does a 10Gt bomb support MAD? MAD is mutual assured destruction: it works because both sides have a comparable power. Equipping one side with 10Gt weapons when the other side has "only" 10Mt-level weapons isn't MAD, it's madness. That is, unless your goal is not MAD at all, but the nuclear destruction of the other side by your side. A prospect that Teller didn't find too horrible, I guess.