Is the nuclear deterrent worth it?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But does that mean, it's only the biggest/strongest baboon that gets him some???

Some what?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What if they did?

Would you press the button?

 

And what would you target?

Three new questions is not an answer to my question.

32 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Disarming Ukraine in 1994 meant there was no risk it could bare its nuclear fangs and have Russia call its bluff.  If they had kept nukes, there would be some risk.

Agreed. If nukes exist there is a risk to the world they will be used. So from the perspective of the world, nukes are a bad idea. But from the perspective of the small country, nukes are often judged to be well worth it. Unfortunately, Israel is primarily looking out for Israeli citizens, not world citizens.

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

You're still not getting it. Nobody is saying that there is no deterrent effect. The point is that it only has to fail ONCE to cause a catastrophe. It's a bit like taking a pill that restores hair loss, but can cause a fatal heart attack. 

You can take the pill, and show off your luxuriant hair if you like. It's a gamble. A smaller reward, gambled against a total catastrophe. You might be a winner, or not, like the guy using the tightrope over the grand canyon. 

The difference with nuclear, is that you're taking the wives and kids across the tightrope along with you.

So how would you propose that small nations prevent large aggressive nations from absorbing them into the larger nation? Surrender? That is the only option I see. This eventually results in a one world nation ripe for internal civil wars at the very least. How do we allow smaller countries to maintain their independence? 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So how would you propose that small nations prevent large aggressive nations from absorbing them into the larger nation? Surrender? That is the only option I see. This eventually results in a one world nation ripe for internal civil wars at the very least. How do we allow smaller countries to maintain their independence? 

Well, the logic of that argument is that large aggressive nations should be absorbing  smaller nations right now, as we speak, before they get the chance to get nukes. If it's not happening, when the haven't got nukes, then your argument falls flat.

You can point to Russia to try to bolster that argument, but there's no evidence that Russia is trying to absorb smaller nations. Crimea was only nominally Ukrainian. Nearly 100% of Crimeans would have called themselves Russian before they split back to Russia. The territory that Russia holds in Ukraine is not dissimilar, and the territories that Russia took control of in Georgia were the same. The people considered themselves Russians. 

In any case, small nations are willingly being absorbed into bigger ones, and queueing to get in. That's the case directly with the EU, and indirectly with the USA, who like to govern other countries by economic means, not an upfront takeover. 

And China have cottoned on, and are quietly doing the same thing to much of Africa. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You can point to Russia to try to bolster that argument, but there's no evidence that Russia is trying to absorb smaller nations.

Interesting perspective given the largest war in Europe since WWII is raging as we speak.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

In any case, small nations are willingly being absorbed into bigger ones,

For example???

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Nearly 100% of Crimeans would have called themselves Russian before they split back to Russia. The territory that Russia holds in Ukraine is not dissimilar, and the territories that Russia took control of in Georgia were the same. The people considered themselves Russians. 

Many people in Chinatown in San Francisco consider themselves Chinese. I wonder when that part of San Francisco will "split back" to China, with the help of the Chinese military.

[mistermack]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For example???

I gave you an example : From wiki : 

"There are eight recognised candidates for membership of the European Union: Turkey (since 1999), North Macedonia (2005), Montenegro (2010), Serbia (2012), Albania (2014), Moldova (2022), Ukraine (2022), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (2022). Kosovo (whose independence is not recognised by five EU member states) and Georgia formally submitted applications for membership in 2022 and are considered potential candidates by the European Union."^[1][2]

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I gave you an example : From wiki : 

"There are eight recognised candidates for membership of the European Union: Turkey (since 1999), North Macedonia (2005), Montenegro (2010), Serbia (2012), Albania (2014), Moldova (2022), Ukraine (2022), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (2022). Kosovo (whose independence is not recognised by five EU member states) and Georgia formally submitted applications for membership in 2022 and are considered potential candidates by the European Union."^[1][2]

I was looking for an example of "small nations... willingly being absorbed into bigger ones". Not an example of small nations  remaining independent states while joining an organization that has both large and small members.

Using your logic my wife and I have been absorbed by AARP.

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not an example of small nations  remaining independent states while joining an organization that has both large and small members.

You don't know much about the EU then.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You don't know much about the EU then.

Gee, that was a well thought out and delivered rebuttal. Well done.

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Gee, that was a well thought out and delivered rebuttal. Well done.

It was more than it was worth. 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

That's not the way  I read it. In a Mexican standoff the best chance of survival is to maintain the status quo.

In the contex of Israel, for instance, having a nuke doesn't maintain the status quo, it increases the tension and all for a weapon that can never be used. 

All they can do is wave it about, because it's a gun that also shoot's the shooter; the down side of ownership is that it gives the opponent all the time they need to seek a more powerful weapon of their own.

Nuclear war, is a gun with only one bullet and a Mexican standoff has more than one opponent, ergo you'd be safer without it, so let them wave it around while I get me some (nudge nudge wink wink).

[dimreepr]

On 4/19/2023 at 3:38 PM, zapatos said:

Three new questions is not an answer to my question.

What is your question?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What is your question?

You really need to read the posts you respond to.

[iNow]

On 4/19/2023 at 8:08 AM, zapatos said:

Would Russia have been so willing to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine had nuclear weapons?

 

On 4/19/2023 at 8:30 AM, dimreepr said:

What if they did?

Would you press the button?

And what would you target?

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

You really need to read the posts you respond to.

My apologies, my post was an extention of the salami argument (the yes prime minister clip), in one of my previous post's, which I thought was a reasonable answer.

For clarity yes, I think Putin would have still attacked Ukraine, assuming Ukraines arsenal would be similar to that of Isreal, probably using a salami type strategy. It would depend on the truth of his stated motivation, for instance, if Ukraine had a nuclear capability, they wouldn't feel the need to reach out to NATO for protection, so Putin wouldn't feel threatened by his neighbour. 

I'm not sure what Ukraine could have done about it, even if they had a few nukes.

TBH I'm not sure what NATO could have done if Ukraine was a member.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

My apologies, my post was an extention of the salami argument (the yes prime minister clip), in one of my previous post's, which I thought was a reasonable answer.

For clarity yes, I think Putin would have still attacked Ukraine, assuming Ukraines arsenal would be similar to that of Isreal, probably using a salami type strategy. It would depend on the truth of his stated motivation, for instance, if Ukraine had a nuclear capability, they wouldn't feel the need to reach out to NATO for protection, so Putin wouldn't feel threatened by his neighbour. 

I'm not sure what Ukraine could have done about it, even if they had a few nukes.

TBH I'm not sure what NATO could have done if Ukraine was a member.

Salami for the goose ,salami for the gander?

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I'm not sure what NATO could have done if Ukraine was a member.

With just the little help Ukraine received from NATO, even though Ukraine was not a member, has allowed Ukraine to pretty much hand Russia it's proverbial Ass on a silver platter. With the full help of NATO Russia would have been repulsed fully... probably even denied the Donbas region of Ukraine it took in 2014.

In fact considering the poor showing of the Russian war machine so far NATO could have taken a considerable amount of actual Russian territory by now quite possibly taking the region between Ukraine and Kazakhstan with relative ease. 

In fact all things being considered without nuclear weapons Russia barely qualifies as more than a thorn in the side of Europe and its existence is a result of no one wanting the frozen tundra that makes up most of Russia. 

IMHO Russia's best bet to remain a viable nation would be to suck up to NATO as to become a source of natural resources possible even becoming part of NATO... instead Russia is doing its best to imitate a military threat to try and blackmail Europe into being Russia's bitch. Kinda like a Chihuahua trying to make a great Dane it's bitch. 

The time of warfare being used to dominate the world is over, this mind set is dead, somewhat like a zombie, now days the most effective way to insure internal peace and prosperity is by cooperation of nations and the real enemy is oligarchy using fascism to achieve internal control. IMHO! 

The Zombies have to be eliminated, the so called "conservative mindset", is little more than zombies trying to recreate the past of societies being run by the fear of various outdated ruling methods/monetary systems like communism, capitalism, theism, monarchies, or other oligarchies. 

These ruling systems are not just outdated they are toxic to human existence, yes small parts of some of these systems can be used to govern a region but none of them are viable for everyone in the long term.

Violent conflict must be allowed to die out and peaceful tolerance of those who are different but non violent must become who we are as a planetary civilization.       

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

With just the little help Ukraine received from NATO, even though Ukraine was not a member, has allowed Ukraine to pretty much hand Russia it's proverbial Ass on a silver platter. With the full help of NATO Russia would have been repulsed fully... probably even denied the Donbas region of Ukraine it took in 2014.

In fact considering the poor showing of the Russian war machine so far NATO could have taken a considerable amount of actual Russian territory by now quite possibly taking the region between Ukraine and Kazakhstan with relative ease.

Then NATO would be falling into the same trap, assuming more power equals success, while assuming Russia probably wouldn't press the button; because no rational mind would, so what's the point of having more nukes than we need to make a statement?

Besides any strategic advantages/statement, ran out when Japan surrendered.

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Violent conflict must be allowed to die out and peaceful tolerance of those who are different but non violent must become who we are as a planetary civilization.

Agreed, but I fear my urge to throw my poop at certain people remains, and that just ain't civilised.  🖖

[TheVat]

Let's say full nuclear deterrence is reached by five warheads (of big city erasing megatonnage).  Five can take out a major power's capital and four most economically vital cities.  That would effectively collapse that nation.  

How could we at least reach that stage of MAD?  It would keep maintaining that condition where WW3 is unthinkable, while reducing the potential to erase the planetary biosphere.  E.g. wipe out Washington DC, New York, LA, Chicago, and Houston.  USA collapses, but most of our territory would remain habitable and cropland outside of fallout plumes would be sufficient to feed many survivors.  Industrial centers would remain, as would NG and petroleum fields, interstate highways and rails, wind turbines on the Great Plains, and refineries in Oklahoma, Kansas, couple other states.  As this attack happened, we in turn would fire our five at Russia, taking out Moscow, etc.  Both nations would vanish from the world stage, in terms of power and economy, and would spend decades if not centuries simply surviving and catching up, possibly as an aggregate of balkanized regions.  The enemies would be, as Moon mentions, reemerging oligarchs using fascist tactics, offering their power to restore order.  Balkan states might grow around cities like Atlanta, Denver, Seattle.  

Anyway, to keep this post from turning into a dystopian novel, back to main question: could just five big bombs apiece be a workable deterrence system?

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Anyway, to keep this post from turning into a dystopian novel, back to main question: could just five big bombs apiece be a workable deterrence system?

Perhaps a periodic demonstration of the power of nuclear destruction might be internationally entertained. Make it real in controlled circumstances. Throw the full might of multimedia technology at the event so that people who weren't there to see it so they can be as immersed as possible in the event. The level of induced fear wants to be visceral, so that it is temporally durable through generations.

 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Anyway, to keep this post from turning into a dystopian novel, back to main question: could just five big bombs apiece be a workable deterrence system?

 

While I think it is possible five would work (and this is a great idea btw), it also depends on whether or not five is enough to ensure a retaliatory strike, which is necessary if you want to keep the other guy from firing first. You don't really need a nuclear weapon to take out another nuclear weapon; conventional weapons will do. So if my capabilities are high, I might feel I can wipe out all five of your weapons at once without having to use any of mine, and if I get all five you are now at a severe disadvantage.

[MigL]

In Star Trek OS, A Taste Of Armageddon ( S01E23 ), the Enterprise is accidentally caught in a simulated attack between two worlds that have been at war for 800 years.
They have 'sanitized' war, with simulations and disintegration chambers for those targetted, so much that there is no reason to end wars or avoid them in the first place.
Kirk decides to destroy the targetting computers, give them back the horrors of real war, and tells them to start negotiating a peace if they want to avoid those horrors.

Drone strikes, proxy wars, and other means of sanitizing war are counter-productive.
It is the horror of millions of people losing their lives that helps prevent it from happening.

( yes, I've learned many life lessons from Star Trek )

[dimreepr]

On 4/24/2023 at 4:17 AM, MigL said:

In Star Trek OS, A Taste Of Armageddon ( S01E23 ), the Enterprise is accidentally caught in a simulated attack between two worlds that have been at war for 800 years.
They have 'sanitized' war, with simulations and disintegration chambers for those targetted, so much that there is no reason to end wars or avoid them in the first place.
Kirk decides to destroy the targetting computers, give them back the horrors of real war, and tells them to start negotiating a peace if they want to avoid those horrors.

Drone strikes, proxy wars, and other means of sanitizing war are counter-productive.
It is the horror of millions of people losing their lives that helps prevent it from happening.

( yes, I've learned many life lessons from Star Trek )

Ironically, America's strategy in this context is built on war game simulations (you can't get anymore sanitised than that), nearly all of which ended with no nukes being fired; does Kirk's wisdom work in this case?

On 4/23/2023 at 4:23 PM, TheVat said:

Anyway, to keep this post from turning into a dystopian novel, back to main question: could just five big bombs apiece be a workable deterrence system?

Yes, but we'd have to trust, them... 

On a side note, a small exchange of nukes between India and Pakistan (250 nukes used) was run in a global simulation; that might be all it takes for humanity to face armageddon. 

[npts2020]

On 4/23/2023 at 8:32 AM, dimreepr said:

what's the point of having more nukes than we need to make a statement?

$$$$$, same as virtually everything supplied to the military. What is the point of having airplanes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in the kind of war we haven't been involved with for longer than most of us have been alive?

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

 

$, same as virtually everything supplied to the military. What is the point of having airplanes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in the kind of war we haven't been involved with for longer than most of us have been alive?

 

One can feel safe in many way's, but it usually involves some sort of stick/weapon.

[npts2020]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

One can feel safe in many way's, but it usually involves some sort of stick/weapon.

I feel much safer when no weapons are around.