The next step in the nucular game of chess.

[Grob]

Allah will be happy, but the rest of us won't be around to see the smile on His face.

munk

I really hope you are joking munk, because I respect you I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[munk]

Yes, I'm joking. It is a dark and terrible humor, though, one I do not wish to see come true.

munk

 

[Fiddleback]

I wasn't speaking of invading and occupying, but destroying without causing worldwide climate change. IE the use of planes and bombs and missiles. They are dispersed on ships and bases worldwide. Why would you insist that we retaliate against a country like say Iran with nukes just because they did it too? Why not just destroy them with our new mega-conventional bombs and not cause fallout to rain down upon trading partners such as Russia and China. Now, I think if a big country like Russia or China attacked with Nukes then we'd better get ours into the air before theirs landed, or we're toast. But against a weak country such as Iran, why not just destroy them conventionally?

 

[munk]

I would not, and did not, say retaliate against anyone because, 'they used nukes too".
No option is off the table when the survival of civilization is at stake. If anyone thinks the West should sit still for target practise while we work the sensitivity thing out.....
I'm all for conventional military.
If there is a solution, maybe we'd better get busy on Star Wars.
I'm not planning on the milk of human kindness to survive this. We need a technological breakthrough. And we must be willing also to use the hard boot.

>>>>>>>>>
By the time this is all over, if it ever is, I like Heinlein's idea that service grants citizenship and the right to vote. All kinds of service, not just military, but service.

>>>>>>>

munk

 

[Fiddleback]

I would not, and did not, say retaliate against anyone because, 'they used nukes too".
No option is off the table when the survival of civilization is at stake. If anyone thinks the West should sit still for target practise while we work the sensitivity thing out.....
I'm all for conventional military.
If there is a solution, maybe we'd better get busy on Star Wars.
I'm not planning on the milk of human kindness to survive this. We need a technological breakthrough. And we must be willing also to use the hard boot.

munk

Didn't mean to get you riled up bro. I think you know I'm not in the sensitivity crowd. And letting someone use us for target practice I would not consider acceptable either. Star Wars is an excellent idea to have, and we should be working on a laser based pinpoint accuracy weapon regardless of missile threat.

I guess I'm jaded, but I really don't know what the milk of human kindness could be. Basically since we could walk with two of our limbs we've been using the other two to kill each other.

IMO the time is now. Destroy Iran's nuclear capability now. Make it look like they had a bad accident. Whatever. But whatever you do, don't let them lead the middle east into becoming a nuclear zone.

 

[munk]

I see a world where most of us are herded into forms. Where life is hard and precious, and those caring more, and risking more, should get to decide what happens next.

My Montana has a 33 point system for bad driving. Lord knows what happens to you when you reach 33.
Some people say, 'anyone can die for his country' Exactly. The means to a vote will be various. But when life becomes hard to maintain, and precarious, we should reward those who give a damn.

>>>>>>>>>>

munk

 

[munk]

Andy, I'm for knocking Iran's ambitions out soon.


Is there no way out of this? They'll hate us even more. If we are 'democratic' and go through 'solutions'; neither they nor the UN will recognize them. And in the Arab press, it is even worse, no good deed goes unpunished there: Great Satan is behind everything. We cannot stretch a hand out in welcome when it is not seen by Arab zealots as any thing but evil; and we cannot hope to define evil through the UN.

This defines Rock and Hard place.

This is why I pray. Yes, that's right; I pray for me and you and the whole ball.
I'm not too proud, nor intellectual, to realize where it comes down.

munk

 

[Fiddleback]

I'd like for there to be sunlight for my grandkids to enjoy too bro.

 

[Fiddleback]

Andy, I'm for knocking Iran's ambitions out soon.


Is there no way out of this? They'll hate us even more. If we are 'democratic' and go through 'solutions'; neither they nor the UN will recognize them. And in the Arab press, it is even worse, no good deed goes unpunished there: Great Satan is behind everything. We cannot stretch a hand out in welcome when it is not seen by Arab zealots as any thing but evil; and we cannot hope to define evil through the UN.

This defines Rock and Hard place.

This is why I pray. Yes, that's right; I pray for me and you and the whole ball.
I'm not too proud, nor intellectual, to realize where it comes down.

munk

This is certainly the ME spin on us no matter what we do. Unless we fall from prominence and are suddenly starving. They'd love us then. The UN is worthless. We must do what has to be done and veto any UN crap that gets slung our way. I don't advocate another occupation. More like a targeted strike that would destroy their military infrastructure, or a covert operation that would produce an "accident".

 

[Dave Rishar]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the opinions already stated, I present a question:

We obviously consider our nuclear capability to be our right. What authority enables us to deny this right to others?

When answering this, please keep in mind that we justify our nuclear arsenal in terms of self defense. Would we deny another the right to self defense? And if so, why?

Assuming that nuclear weapons are even the ultimate goal (and not inexpensive energy as was stated), we must remember that as of now, these nations have no method of delivering said weapons in a strategically effective amount, and that by using even one, they've essentially unleashed the dogs of war. They would probably develop such a capacity eventually; such a thing would by no means diminish America's own ability to pay back such an action many, many times over.

There is a difference between rhetoric and policy.

I will repeat my opinion that there are nations in this world that I believe shouldn't have nuclear weapons (a few of which already have them), but this is not because I'm worried about them deploying them; I'm worried about who else they might give them to.

Short of somehow gaining control of every nuclear weapon and uranium deposit in existance and sending them all into space, I see no feasible method of preventing nations from "going nuclear." Surgical strikes and such merely delay the inevitable and cement ill will toward the nation that does such things.

 

[Steely_Gunz]

Right now I hope that all it comes to will be the days of MAD. i don't mind living with the fear of atomic extinction. However, the dirty bombs are what scare me. tracing that all back to where it came from, a strike by us on that country, the political backlash across the globe. I would rather go out in a flash than watch the world tear itself apart, to watch the US become (by means of survival) the monster they make us out to be.
I guess the only way to be "sure" is to just take out everyone when we do a dark joke, i assure you.

However, it does remind me a Randy Newman song. Just skip the first minute of the guy talking before hand.
Political Science

Jake

 

[Fiddleback]

They have no "conventional" means to deliver them Dave. They could just ship them to an American port rather than put them on a missile. Any nation could do that.

 

[munk]

Dave;
All people are born equal, with equal opportunity, but are all nations, and men, equal; morally, philosophically, economically, militarily?

If the waring nations in Africa had nukes, how much Africa would be left in 20 years?



munk

 

[Grob]

Hillarious Jake, for any IR types out there a fine example of Realist theory.

 

[munk]

What's IR?


munk

 

[Dave Rishar]

They have no "conventional" means to deliver them Dave. They could just ship them to an American port rather than put them on a missile. Any nation could do that.

Indeed, and most nations could get a walker through with a suitcase device. Neither situation would be strategically effective. Both situations would enrage the target and show the world (and you) that yes, they have far more of these things than you do and yes, they're willing to use them if provoked sufficiently.

Nobody wins in this case. Or rather, America loses less badly. This is not a victory for the other side, as after the dust settles, there would be no other side.

Strategically sound deployment would require enough nukes hitting enough targets to at least alter the target's foreign policy, if not actually destroy the target altogether. As we can see, this would require a lot of nukes, a lot of delivery systems, and at least a fair degree of accuracy. Bear in mind that the US's nuclear weapons program was developed with redundancy and second strike capability in mind; even if you somehow manage to knock off all the primary targets in one quick surprise salvo, there is a secondary system of retribution (and a command and control system to direct it) in place. There is no free lunch. Launch, and you will be launched upon. Even if you have completely destroyed America as a country, the retaliatory salvo will come and will be sufficient to ruin one's day. Unless the initiating country is the Soviet Union prior to the end of the Cold War, what's coming back will far outweigh what went out; even in that case, the outcome would be in doubt.

This is probably why the Cold War never went hot. NATO's policy was to deploy weapons of mass destruction in case of serious losses in a conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact's policy was probably the same. Winning is meaningless if there's nothing left to win, and no one to claim the spoils.

How badly do you want to win this, and are you prepared to lose everything (including the ability to enjoy a perceived victory) to achieve it? This is the question that a nuclear nation looking for trouble must ask itself. This is not firing shots over a border or shooting a missile at a ship. This is nuclear war. All bets are off and the policy is not a secret; use nukes, and suffer nukes. If the other side has more of them than you this is not a winning equation. The rest of the world will suffer but be selfish for a moment: what about me? What will happen to my home if nuclear weapons are deployed?

The answer is that there will be no you, and your home will cease to exist. This axiom guided the Cold War to its eventual death and will likely continue to guide future standoffs to a non-nuclear (if not non-violent) resolution.

The fly in the ointment is an entity, or entities, that posess a nuclear capability but aren't tied to a particular nation. Without accountability to a population and a location the system falls apart. Thus, again I'm not worried about nuclear nations; I'm worried about nuclear individuals, and how those individuals might attain said means.

When asked what would happen if Africa had nukes, I would respond with, "What if Israel had nukes? Or Pakistan? Or India? Or North Korea?"

No nation has a desire to open this can of worms. Leaders may speak rhetoric but there is no requirement that they actually believe it. (And if they do, they'll likely not be leaders for very long.) It's a big saber to rattle but there are folks with bigger sabers.

We know that the UN doesn't work in this case. What else will? Sanctions that won't be supported? Military action? Who will this burden rest on? If they accept the burden, how long will it be before the rest of the have-nots decide that they've indeed had enough and do something about it? Enforcing such a thing is not only hypocritical, it's impossible.

Assuming that we ever find a way to enforce a global nuclear policy, how do we decide who gets nuclear technology and who doesn't? What if they rate power plants but can't have weapons? Who determines the difference between a purpose-built breeder reactor and one made to produce power that happens to have some plutonium left over? Who will enforce the decisions of this organization? What gives anyone the right to pick the have's and the have-not's, and what qualifies them for this? (Be very careful how you answer this, if you choose to answer it at all.)

For a group of individuals that largely support the right to keep and bear arms, we seem remarkably selective about what arms people can keep and bear and who those people are.

 

[Fiddleback]

You are of course correct Dave. You made a rational, historically relevant argument. I just don't see a lot of rational thought on the part of our enemy today. During the Cold War we fought an enemy whose goal was world domination, but they were rational. These new guys are loopy. They'll rejoice a city being leveled as the missiles rein in on them and their children. Holocaust is no laughing matter for any of us. Be it here or ME centered, it will affect the entire globe. What if all the worlds oil supply is irridiated, or at least must be pumped through layers of irridiated glass? What then?

 

[munk]

Unless the initiating country is the Soviet Union prior to the end of the Cold War, what's coming back will far outweigh what went out; even in that case, the outcome would be in doubt.

This is probably why the Cold War never went hot. NATO's policy was to deploy weapons of mass destruction in case of serious losses in a conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact's policy was probably the same. Winning is meaningless if there's nothing left to win, and no one to claim the spoils.

-Dave Rishar

>>>>>>>>>

This assumes people care about the outcome.

I believe your foriegn policy is about 20 years out of date.
>>>>>>>>>

Yes, the second amendment is a universal; but not unilateral. Why don't we arm every nation with nukes to 'even it out'?? Because like a unilaterally open border, or free trade, it will result in too much short term damage, which in the case of nukes, we may not survive.




munk

 

[Spectre]

munk, we aren't all created equal, are we? We're all possessed of some value because of our humanity, but we have different genetics, intelligence levels, means, desires, etc.

Maybe I lucked out- I'm an American, all my limbs work, and I wasn't born with AIDS or sickle cell.

I may try to help others who have less advantages, but I ain't giving mine up, either.

Don't even know what I'm trying to say.

"The more I find out, the less that I know."

John

 

[munk]

I only meant it in the sense we are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
But nothing is fair, is it?


munk

edit: all of our foreign policy understanding is out of date. There is no 'right' answer.