Debates
09 Jun 12
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou're missing the point.
Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.
Whether the US has 1,000 nuclear missiles or 10,000 nuclear missiles, it could still dispose of 99% of them and preserve its self-described "security objectives."
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaHow do you figure ?!
You're missing the point.
Whether the US has 1,000 nuclear missiles or 10,000 nuclear missiles, it could still dispose of 99% of them and preserve its self-described "security objectives."
Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.
Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?
Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonBy that logic, every other country in the world can only be "secure" if they build as many nuclear weapons as the US presently has.
How do you figure ?!
Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.
Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?
Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignNations defeated after waging aggressive, ruthless war don't get to make that judgment.
Each nation ought to keep whatever military force required for their own security, based on their own judgement.
Japan, only a short distance from a long time declared enemy is in an unenviable position.
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonI don't envision the United States needing to wipe any entire countries off the map any time soon. And if we did need to, we'd have bigger concerns by that point, anyway.
How do you figure ?!
Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.
Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?
Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?
Positioning of those 10 hypothetical nuclear weapons seems irrelevant to me, anyway, considering the intercontinental range of modern warfare.
11 Jun 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaI know its irrelevant to you. That much is obvious.
I don't envision the United States needing to wipe any entire countries off the map any time soon. And if we did need to, we'd have bigger concerns by that point, anyway.
Positioning of those 10 hypothetical nuclear weapons seems irrelevant to me, anyway, considering the intercontinental range of modern warfare.
I would never envision the U.S. wiping anyone off the map as you say, but it is a silly notion to think many others do not want us gone and have all of our resources.
There are still very real threats out there. From actual foreign nations. Not just little bands of of camel jockey terrorist.
The ONLY reason the citizens of the U.S. and its allies are safe and secure since WW2 is because the U.S. has an extreme deterrent. Its military might. Which includes the nuke option.
Read up on the Cuban missile crisis for example. What the Russians had planned for us. To you its probably "ancient history". Some obscure thing you have read about. Not me. I was there I lived through it. And I am surely far from ancient. LOL.
Russia and China either directly or indirectly through their proxy's are still very real threats to the U.S. It is foolish to believe otherwise.
11 Jun 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonA nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. The United States only needs enough firepower to prevent the first nuclear attack against it.
I know its irrelevant to you. That much is obvious.
I would never envision the U.S. wiping anyone off the map as you say, but it is a silly notion to think many others do not want us gone and have all of our resources.
There are still very real threats out there. From actual foreign nations. Not just little bands of of camel jockey terrorist.
...[text shortened]... gh their proxy's are still very real threats to the U.S. It is foolish to believe otherwise.
Besides, it's not like those "camel jockey terrorists" care about our nuclear stockpiles (except with regards to how they might somehow use one of our own missiles against us)--it's not like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we had had 50,000 nuclear weapons instead of 5,000.
11 Jun 12
Seems to be common sense that a military strategy that was supposedly designed to stop the soviet union from expanding would be pretty useless in today's era of terrorism and small scale conventional conflicts.
Also if you are judging a nato members stockpile of nukes you should count nato's stockpile of nukes.
11 Jun 12
4 edits
Originally posted by kevcvs57The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces and a few tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.
Seems to be common sense that a military strategy that was supposedly designed to stop the soviet union from expanding would be pretty useless in today's era of terrorism and small scale conventional conflicts.
Also if you are judging a nato members stockpile of nukes you should count nato's stockpile of nukes.
11 Jun 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's actually the other way around; the Soviet (now Russian) arsenal was developed to prevent the US from waging a first strike. The US has always had a superiority in strategic nuclear weapons.
The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces a ...[text shortened]... w tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.
11 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt goes both ways. Mutually Assured Destruction. But in the old days we didn't have enough weapons to wipe out the planet.
It's actually the other way around; the Soviet (now Russian) arsenal was developed to prevent the US from waging a first strike. The US has always had a superiority in strategic nuclear weapons.
11 Jun 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you think the United States needs thousands of nuclear weapons to accomplish as much today?
The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces a ...[text shortened]... w tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.