Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:15 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567

Let's disarm our nukes and see what happens.


I propose the US disarm it's nukes, and let's see what happens. It's not like russia or North korea is going to start throwing nukes at us. I think the only real problem that could occur is when say Russia meddles with a country we say hey stop it, then they tell us to go fuck ourselves but that happens regardless of whether we got nukes or not because we both know neither of us has the balls to fire them.

So, if we disarm our nukes, and we create a treaty to disarm and never create nuclear bombs (unless Elon wants to nuke mars), wont other countries follow our lead since realistically if they did shoot off a nuke at us or an ally, they'd get obliterated even without us using nukes. We can regulate the resources and information people need to create nuclear bombs well enough, and if we had Russia side with us on this we could crack down on North Korea.

I think we as a whole are just afraid to take the first step towards disarmament, I'm sure there will be many people responding to this with immediate rejections citing different reasons why they believe disarming our nukes would be problematic. But none of that really matters since it happens anyways, whether we have nukes or not.

Edit: I think we could frame it this way, having nukes is more dangerous than not having nukes. Whatever problems could occur or be blamed on disarmament, would not outweigh the dangers having active nukes pose.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-30-2019 at 10:18 PM.
  #2  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:21 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Edit: I think we could frame it this way, having nukes is more dangerous than not having nukes. Whatever problems could occur or be blamed on disarmament, would not outweigh the dangers having active nukes pose.
Not having nukes when other countries do have nukes is more dangerous than having nukes. So we can't frame it that way.

Last edited by TriPolar; 10-30-2019 at 10:21 PM.
  #3  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:34 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
I propose we dismantle the fire department, and see if any more fires happen..
  #4  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:45 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,471
We won't have any more environmental issues if we just get rid of the environment.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #5  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:01 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4,064
Multilateral arms-reduction treaties are not necessarily a bad idea; it's not like it must be a unilateral or all-or-nothing decision.
  #6  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:36 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Not having nukes when other countries do have nukes is more dangerous than having nukes. So we can't frame it that way.
I disagree, them having nukes and us not having nukes is no more dangerous than us having nukes, in fact it's less dangerous.
  #7  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
... So, if we disarm our nukes, and we create a treaty to disarm and never create nuclear bombs (unless Elon wants to nuke mars), wont other countries follow our lead since realistically if they did shoot off a nuke at us or an ally, they'd get obliterated even without us using nukes. ...
Why in the heck do you think a country would get "obliterated" if they nuked us after we've removed our own nuclear deterrent? Who, in this scenario, do you imagine would be doing the obliterating?
  #8  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:44 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Not having nukes when other countries do have nukes is more dangerous than having nukes. So we can't frame it that way.
That applies to nuclear powers that are stable, rational countries. That can not be said about the USA at this time. Hopefully the USA will stabilize before an irrecoverable act is made.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #9  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:46 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why in the heck do you think a country would get "obliterated" if they nuked us after we've removed our own nuclear deterrent? Who, in this scenario, do you imagine would be doing the obliterating?
I guess in this fantasy...the UK and France retaliate??? Not likely. Russia has nukes for them too.
  #10  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
I guess in this fantasy...the UK and France retaliate??? Not likely. Russia has nukes for them too.
Exactly. Here's a hypothetical scenario:

President Kamala decommissions all our nukes in early 2029. Shortly afterwards, Putin nukes our 100 largest cities and our 100 most important military bases. They broadcast a radio transmission to the smoldering ruins of America, and to France and the UK (now just England and Wales) and says, "if you lay a finger on us in retaliation, we'll nuke cities #101-200, as well as London and Paris and the next 10 largest cities in England and France". You think anyone's going to do anything to Russia at that point? I don't.
  #11  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:56 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Exactly. Here's a hypothetical scenario:

President Kamala decommissions all our nukes in early 2029. Shortly afterwards, Putin nukes our 100 largest cities and our 100 most important military bases. They broadcast a radio transmission to the smoldering ruins of America, and to France and the UK (now just England and Wales) and says, "if you lay a finger on us in retaliation, we'll nuke cities #101-200, as well as London and Paris and the next 10 largest cities in England and France". You think anyone's going to do anything to Russia at that point? I don't.
Maybe China thinks they can surprise them? That all i got.
  #12  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:01 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,693
Here's the sort of thing that I'm getting at about the lack of stability.
Quote:
“I think this is a first — a country with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in it literally firing artillery at U.S. forces,” said Jeffrey Lewis, from the California-based James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, The Times reported.
I assume that the USA troop withdrawal from Turkey did not include withdrawing the USA nuke protection troops, but I have not come across anything definitive.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #13  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:05 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
... the USA troop withdrawal from Turkey ...
We withdrew from northern Syria. AFAIK, we've still got several thousand people stationed at Incirlik.
  #14  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:27 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,693
Thanks.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #15  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:28 AM
RedSky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 4
What do you mean your nukes? they also protect NATO,Taiwan,Sth Korea,Australia and the Saudi etc etc who start building their own the day after the USA decommissions their own weapons. What could possibly go wrong.
  #16  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:40 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I propose the US disarm it's nukes, and let's see what happens. It's not like russia or North korea is going to start throwing nukes at us. I think the only real problem that could occur is when say Russia meddles with a country we say hey stop it, then they tell us to go fuck ourselves but that happens regardless of whether we got nukes or not because we both know neither of us has the balls to fire them.

So, if we disarm our nukes, and we create a treaty to disarm and never create nuclear bombs (unless Elon wants to nuke mars), wont other countries follow our lead since realistically if they did shoot off a nuke at us or an ally, they'd get obliterated even without us using nukes. We can regulate the resources and information people need to create nuclear bombs well enough, and if we had Russia side with us on this we could crack down on North Korea.

I think we as a whole are just afraid to take the first step towards disarmament, I'm sure there will be many people responding to this with immediate rejections citing different reasons why they believe disarming our nukes would be problematic. But none of that really matters since it happens anyways, whether we have nukes or not.

Edit: I think we could frame it this way, having nukes is more dangerous than not having nukes. Whatever problems could occur or be blamed on disarmament, would not outweigh the dangers having active nukes pose.
No, we, as a whole live in the real world...a world inhabited by humans. Even WITH the current situation, countries push at the status quo and push at the US and our allies. How, after disarming ourselves and leaving ourselves and our allies totally at the mercy of folks like Putin and Xi (and the CCP for gods sake ) would help is, well, a mystery. It's a crazy idea. Hell, if I were either of them I wouldn't disarm either.

No, either everyone disarms together, which, frankly, is never going to happen, or no one does. Which is more likely. We haven't even been successful in stopping other nations from getting the evil things, even nations who should never, ever have them.

As to your thinking that having nukes (that is, us having them) is more dangerous than not, well...that's true, if we were some small nation who didn't care about what goes on outside our borders and has zero influence or need for outside connections. Sadly, the US ain't that nation. Even without nukes, the US would be a target...in fact, without them, we'd be more of a target, unless we decided that we would go total isolationist, feudal Japan levels, and didn't want any trade or any input into how the world operates. Assuming we don't go that route, then not having nukes just means we are open to that much more external extortion by countries that do...and pretty much renders our conventional military useless, or so degraded at to be so. We move a carrier, and North Korea threatens a nuclear strike. What do we do then? Hope they are bluffing? And if they aren't? I guess just take the hit. China decides that it doesn't want these silly freedom of navigation runs the US is doing in 'their' territory (since ancient times, dontchaknow??) and threatens a nuke strike. What do we do? Russia decides it REALLY doesn't like all these former client slave states...sorry, partner countries...to have left them and joined NATO...and decides that isn't acceptable. And threatens to use it's far superior nuclear capabilities unless NATO tosses them out for the Soviets..er, sorry, the Russian Federation...to snatch them back up. What do you suppose NATO does with a toothless US? Sure, they have some nukes...think the Europeans would risk a confrontation with a nuclear superior Russia and no US to back them up?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #17  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:40 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
So, if we disarm our nukes, and we create a treaty to disarm and never create nuclear bombs (unless Elon wants to nuke mars), won't other countries follow our lead?
Absolutely not. The moment the USA goes nuke-free, you'll see ally nations like Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. - maybe even Vietnam and Ukraine - going nuclear. Bear in mind that Taiwan, for instance, had a nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s and didn't stop it until the US applied strong pressure on it to stop.


America going nuke-free would cause more nuclear proliferation, not less.
  #18  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:45 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSky View Post
What do you mean your nukes? they also protect NATO,Taiwan,Sth Korea,Australia and the Saudi etc etc who start building their own the day after the USA decommissions their own weapons. What could possibly go wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Absolutely not. The moment the USA goes nuke-free, you'll see ally nations like Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. - maybe even Vietnam and Ukraine - going nuclear. Bear in mind that Taiwan, for instance, had a nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s and didn't stop it until the US applied strong pressure on it to stop.


America going nuke-free would cause more nuclear proliferation, not less.
You both are absolutely correct.
  #19  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:49 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Absolutely not. The moment the USA goes nuke-free, you'll see ally nations like Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. - maybe even Vietnam and Ukraine - going nuclear. Bear in mind that Taiwan, for instance, had a nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s and didn't stop it until the US applied strong pressure on it to stop.


America going nuke-free would cause more nuclear proliferation, not less.
Absolutely. They would have too. And they would be behind the curve instantly, and trying to catch up. And extremely anxious about the situation. It's similar to what would happen if the US suddenly decided, fuck it, we don't need no stinkin' military anymore, everyone fend for themselves. There would be a panic, and an instant arms race and build up on all sides. The world would be completely destabilized.

Ironically, China itself would frantically be building nukes. Their own current (modest) nuclear posture is predicated on the US, our own nuclear levels and policies, and the balance between the US and Russia wrt nukes. They figured, we don't need as many, just enough for a credible deterrence. But that calculation would instantly change if the US did this silly idea of the OPs.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #20  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:54 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,636
I’m a “no nukes “ kind of guy and a risk taker at heart. Even so, “See what happens” is not a policy I could endorse.
  #21  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:28 AM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Edit: I think we could frame it this way, having nukes is more dangerous than not having nukes. Whatever problems could occur or be blamed on disarmament, would not outweigh the dangers having active nukes pose.
Given Russia's approach to use of nuclear weapons one of those risks of unilateral disarmament is increasing the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used. I also worry about creating an incentive for nuclear proliferation that also comes with a risk of nuclear weapons being used.

The concept relevant here is their approach which includes what is frequently called escalating to deescalate. Both public statements and more recent weapons development support that notion being part of Russia's nuclear doctrine. Briefly it's the idea that they can use limited first-use nuclear strikes (escalating from merely conventional means) when conventional conflict has turned against them and they want to de-escalate in a way that is favorable to them. That's a concept now when we still have strong strategic nuclear forces. Russia is effectively gambling that the US and our nuclear capable allies won't choose to risk further escalation in response to those initial limited strikes.

Even now, when they face an existential threat if they guess wrong, they have crafted nuclear doctrine to conduct limited nuclear strikes when it is advantageous. That doesn't strike me as an adversary that will respond to unilateral disarmament by disavowing first use of nuclear weapons. It looks a lot more like one that, seeing the risk of guessing wrong going down, is more likely to use nuclear weapons.

Then there is the effect on all of our allies and partners that don't have nuclear capability. They know that's there's a US nuclear arsenal to fall back on to protect their most vital national interests. That ceases if we unilaterally disarm and creates an incentive for them to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop their own weapons. Sure there's the normal tools to prevent that like sanctions and conventional military strikes. Those tools are problematic when we're discussing nations that are already our strategic allies/partners. Increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is not on my Christmas list this, or any other, year. If the number of nuclear armed nations does go up that comes with the risk that relatively obscure (in US awareness) regional friction points now become potential triggers for nuclear release somewhere in the world.

The US disarming does not necessarily reduce the risk of nuclear war. It may increase those risks. I would call potentially increasing the risk of nuclear war worse than than the US merely having nuclear weapons.

Last edited by DinoR; 10-31-2019 at 01:30 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:39 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I disagree, them having nukes and us not having nukes is no more dangerous than us having nukes, in fact it's less dangerous.
I strongly disagree. I think a big factor that keeps any country from using nuclear weapons is the fear of retaliation. Remove the possibility of retaliation and the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used increases.

I'll point out that there was a four year period when one country had nuclear weapons. And they used them against another country. There has been a seventy year period when more than one country has had nuclear weapons. And no nuclear weapons have been used during that period.
  #23  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:35 AM
2nd Law is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slug's back yard
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I disagree, them having nukes and us not having nukes is no more dangerous than us having nukes, in fact it's less dangerous.
Tell that to Ukraine, who sent their nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the USSR. Do you think Russia would be occupying Crimea if Ukraine had kept a nuclear deterrent?
  #24  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:10 PM
Yodalicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I propose the US disarm it's nukes, and let's see what happens. It's not like russia or North korea is going to start throwing nukes at us.
Are you sure?
  #25  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:14 PM
pigtwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 31
Removing the US's nukes absolutely increases the chance of nuclear war. The two ways to prevent nuclear war is for neither side to have nukes or both sides. I read an article about the game theory of nuclear war that was pretty interesting. It mentioned how the ideal leader(who pushes the button) should be someone who appears(probably not actually is) a little insane and vengeful. The other side needs to be absolutely sure you will launch your nukes. The other part of this is that you need to appear to be able to launch your nukes. The best way to achieve this is to really be able to launch your nukes. I read about some ideas that maybe the button for the nukes shouldn't actually work. But the risk is that the other side figures that out and then nukes you because they know you can't retaliate.

The other thing that is interesting to me is if the proliferation of nukes among the world powers is what we can attribute 'the long peace' to. Starting a non-nuclear war seems like an easy way to get into a nuclear war and so maybe countries avoid starting one.
  #26  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:42 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,661
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #27  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:38 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why in the heck do you think a country would get "obliterated" if they nuked us after we've removed our own nuclear deterrent? Who, in this scenario, do you imagine would be doing the obliterating?
Let's say Russia threatens the US with a nuke after we disarm. Let's say they drop a nuke on us. The US would retaliate by shutting down their power grids, disabling hospitals, and isolating the country.
  #28  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:45 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
But that calculation would instantly change if the US did this silly idea of the OPs.
The moment someone says nuclear disarmament is a silly idea, is the moment you know "we've fucked up".

How many years until we disarm our nukes? 50? 100? 200? Is there an estimated time of nuclear disarmament, would you support a treaty aimed to disarm all nukes across all countries by a certain time period?

How many years until an accident occurs, or until conflict rises and a nation launches another nuke? Do you think we'll reach total disarmament before or after us humans nuke ourselves again?


Edit: So let's say you support the idea of everyone disarming by a certain time period. How do you intend to make that happen? If no one leads the race to nuclear disarmament, there will never be disarmament. The US, will have to be the ones to first reduce their nuclear stockpile, then the rest of the world can follow suit, including Russia and North Korea.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-31-2019 at 07:47 PM.
  #29  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:49 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,806
I'd love to see less nukes in the world, but even a lefty peacenik like me recognizes that this would be a batshit-insane way to go about it.
  #30  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:07 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Let's say Russia threatens the US with a nuke after we disarm. Let's say they drop a nuke on us. The US would retaliate by shutting down their power grids, disabling hospitals, and isolating the country.
I think you are vastly overestimating U.S. ability to "shut down" someone else's power grids and hospitals at will via cybernetics. Granted, I have no access to NSA abilities or classified knowledge, but I think this is way too optimistic.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-31-2019 at 08:08 PM.
  #31  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:10 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The US, will have to be the ones to first reduce their nuclear stockpile, then the rest of the world can follow suit
But the rest of the world has no incentive to follow suit. They would be perfectly happy to keep their nukes and let America disarm itself.

Plus, as already mentioned above, the moment the USA rids itself of its nukes, numerous small American ally nations would feel intense pressure to arm themselves up, because they are now considerably more vulnerable than before. Nations like South Korea, Poland, Taiwan, Japan, etc. They now have every incentive in the world to get themselves an independent nuclear deterrent. Bear in mind that even having America as an ally didn't stop Israel from stocking itself up on some nukes.
  #32  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:12 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Is there an estimated time of nuclear disarmament, would you support a treaty aimed to disarm all nukes across all countries by a certain time period?
Having all countries eliminate their nuclear weapons is far different than what you proposed in this thread, which is one country unilaterally eliminating its nuclear weapons.

And even a universal nuclear disarmament might not be a real blessing. The threat of nuclear war may have imposed a limit on conventional warfare.
  #33  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:57 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think you are vastly overestimating U.S. ability to "shut down" someone else's power grids and hospitals at will via cybernetics. Granted, I have no access to NSA abilities or classified knowledge, but I think this is way too optimistic.
We know the guardian held onto most of the information snowden leaked, and what little we did get we know we've been tapping dams, hospitals, and power grids in dozens of countries. Just this year there were reports of the US infecting russian power grids with malware.

I think you're underestimating the power the US has. The fact you have to buy a chinese cell phone to avoid getting tapped by the NSA should be evidence enough that our government has went above and beyond to ensure our position in the world if push comes to shove. I would not be surprised if the US has actually hijacked nuclear facilities and in the case of the Russias shooting off nukes for example, they could detonate on themselves.

My point being, even without nukes the US could win virtually any war if we went all out. Nuclear isn't the biggest deterrent, our intelligence is.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-31-2019 at 08:57 PM.
  #34  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:00 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But the rest of the world has no incentive to follow suit. They would be perfectly happy to keep their nukes and let America disarm itself.

Plus, as already mentioned above, the moment the USA rids itself of its nukes, numerous small American ally nations would feel intense pressure to arm themselves up, because they are now considerably more vulnerable than before. Nations like South Korea, Poland, Taiwan, Japan, etc. They now have every incentive in the world to get themselves an independent nuclear deterrent. Bear in mind that even having America as an ally didn't stop Israel from stocking itself up on some nukes.
Yes they do, to avoid mutually insured self destruction.

If we're playing monopoly, and you lay it out there that if I do something u dont like you'll flip the board over, and I lay it out there that if you do something I don't like I'll flip the board over. There is mutual insured self destruction if either of us piss one another off. I think both of us, would agree that forming a treaty to NOT flip the board over would be better for both parties, since I'm sure both of us want to continue playing monopoly.
  #35  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:05 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'd love to see less nukes in the world, but even a lefty peacenik like me recognizes that this would be a batshit-insane way to go about it.
I totally disagree. I think first you should form a treaty thats goal is complete 100% disarmament of all nuclear bombs by a certain year, then the US should take the first step and lead the way.

What's batshit crazy is that we have all these bombs just sitting there. Eventually, those bombs will explode. Whether intentional or unintentional, plus if those nuclear facilities are hijacked, our own nukes could be used against us.
  #36  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The moment someone says nuclear disarmament is a silly idea, is the moment you know "we've fucked up".

How many years until we disarm our nukes? 50? 100? 200? Is there an estimated time of nuclear disarmament, would you support a treaty aimed to disarm all nukes across all countries by a certain time period?

How many years until an accident occurs, or until conflict rises and a nation launches another nuke? Do you think we'll reach total disarmament before or after us humans nuke ourselves again?


Edit: So let's say you support the idea of everyone disarming by a certain time period. How do you intend to make that happen? If no one leads the race to nuclear disarmament, there will never be disarmament. The US, will have to be the ones to first reduce their nuclear stockpile, then the rest of the world can follow suit, including Russia and North Korea.
Nuclear disarmament isn't silly, in and of itself. I doubt many in this thread are all fired up about having nuclear weapons. I'm certainly not. I hate the evil things, and would be fine if we all got rid of them. But you have to have a rational plan. You don't just wing a major decision and 'see what happens'. That's rarely a good idea even for an individual, let alone a nation state...let alone a superpower that is part of a web of connections and balances.

Let me give you a timely example of what folks have been trying to explain to you...obviously in vain. Take the situation in Syria. Until recently, the US, despite having a very small force, was the balance point maintaining the status quo in the region. No one could or would go outside of certain parameters because they didn't want to risk the US's wrath. Then, a freaking orange haired monkey decided, hell, let's change the equation and 'see what happens'. Who knew it would cause such chaos and shift the balance so much, causing such a humanitarian crisis?? No one could have predicted that (heavy sarcasm here)!!

What you are suggesting is a LOT worse and a lot more destabilizing. It's, seriously, the kind of silly, stupid shit that TRUMP would do on a whim. It's his level of thought and understanding.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #37  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Let's say Russia threatens the US with a nuke after we disarm. Let's say they drop a nuke on us. The US would retaliate by shutting down their power grids, disabling hospitals, and isolating the country.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are right. The US could, in fact, retaliate to a Russian nuking, oh, say New York city, but shutting down the Russian power grid, disabling their hospitals and isolating the country (whatever that means). What do you think the result would be? Russia caving in and saying, sorry about that smoking crater that was New York...we won't do that again? Or, perhaps LA is now a smoking crater, maybe Chicago...maybe a half dozen or a dozen other cities? What's going to stop them?

And, of course, your idea that we could shut down the Russian grid across the board, let alone for any sort of extended time period, is wildly unrealistic. We MIGHT be able to do some nasty cyber attacks on Russian infrastructure...almost certainly we could...but not that broadly, and certainly not for a really extended time period. And if we COULD, the Russians would, rightfully, consider that an existential threat to be dealt with by extreme measures. Such as nukes. Especially since the US would have nothing left after shooting that fantasy bolt.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #38  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:07 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
What's batshit crazy is that we have all these bombs just sitting there. Eventually, those bombs will explode.
Errr, what? No they will not. Do you think these things are on a hair-trigger or shoddily assembled, so that if they rust a bit, or are jostled, they will go off?

Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been assembled since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. The majority of them were simply disassembled after a while with no incident whatsoever. There has not been a single accidental or wartime detonation of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki in 1945.
  #39  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:34 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Errr, what? No they will not. Do you think these things are on a hair-trigger or shoddily assembled, so that if they rust a bit, or are jostled, they will go off?

Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been assembled since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. The majority of them were simply disassembled after a while with no incident whatsoever. There has not been a single accidental or wartime detonation of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki in 1945.
To be fair, there have been close enough calls that one might judge that the fact there was no inadvertent nuclear war or nuclear escalation, or even an accidental multi-megaton explosion (like at Goldsboro) owes a tiny little bit to luck, which is not cool when you think about it.
  #40  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:35 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Yes they do, to avoid mutually insured self destruction.
I doubt any insurance companies offer self destruction policies.

Quote:

If we're playing monopoly, and you lay it out there that if I do something u dont like you'll flip the board over, and I lay it out there that if you do something I don't like I'll flip the board over. There is mutual insured self destruction if either of us piss one another off. I think both of us, would agree that forming a treaty to NOT flip the board over would be better for both parties, since I'm sure both of us want to continue playing monopoly.
Yes, you are right because it's impossible to violate a treaty.

Last edited by TriPolar; 10-31-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #41  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:50 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Nuclear disarmament isn't silly, in and of itself. I doubt many in this thread are all fired up about having nuclear weapons. I'm certainly not. I hate the evil things, and would be fine if we all got rid of them. But you have to have a rational plan. You don't just wing a major decision and 'see what happens'. That's rarely a good idea even for an individual, let alone a nation state...let alone a superpower that is part of a web of connections and balances.

Let me give you a timely example of what folks have been trying to explain to you...obviously in vain. Take the situation in Syria. Until recently, the US, despite having a very small force, was the balance point maintaining the status quo in the region. No one could or would go outside of certain parameters because they didn't want to risk the US's wrath. Then, a freaking orange haired monkey decided, hell, let's change the equation and 'see what happens'. Who knew it would cause such chaos and shift the balance so much, causing such a humanitarian crisis?? No one could have predicted that (heavy sarcasm here)!!

What you are suggesting is a LOT worse and a lot more destabilizing. It's, seriously, the kind of silly, stupid shit that TRUMP would do on a whim. It's his level of thought and understanding.
I disagree, us having nuclear bombs has not been as effective as you suggest in preventing Russia or others from doing things we don't like.

If you haven't realized it, there are a lot of humanitarian crisis's going on, and we're actually contributing to some of them.
  #42  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:52 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Yes, you are right because it's impossible to violate a treaty.
Which is why you have the US or Russia lead in said treaty.
  #43  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:53 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Errr, what? No they will not. Do you think these things are on a hair-trigger or shoddily assembled, so that if they rust a bit, or are jostled, they will go off?

Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been assembled since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. The majority of them were simply disassembled after a while with no incident whatsoever. There has not been a single accidental or wartime detonation of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki in 1945.
Guess you've never heard of Vasili Arkhipov.
  #44  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:28 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
My point being, even without nukes the US could win virtually any war if we went all out. Nuclear isn't the biggest deterrent, our intelligence is.
No, nuclear weapons are our biggest deterrent. They make up a major portion of our military strength.

With nuclear weapons, the United States is probably the strongest country in the world militarily. But without nuclear weapons, we're barely in the top five. Russia, China, Britain, China with nuclear weapons could all defeat the United States without nuclear weapons. India's a maybe; they have a good-sized arsenal of nuclear warheads but they haven't developed a significant delivery system - their nuclear weapons program has been based around using nuclear weapons in Asia and they've only recently begun deploying global reach weapons.
  #45  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:32 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Guess you've never heard of Vasili Arkhipov.
He was the Russian admiral who didn't use nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crisis. I don't know why you think mentioning him refutes Velocity's statement that there's been no use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
  #46  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:42 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Let's say Russia threatens the US with a nuke after we disarm. Let's say they drop a nuke on us. The US would retaliate by shutting down their power grids, disabling hospitals, and isolating the country.
How? We threaten them, AFTER they dropped a single nuke on us?

This is a crazy idea, like most all of your ideas.
  #47  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:07 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I would not be surprised if the US has actually hijacked nuclear facilities and in the case of the Russias shooting off nukes for example, they could detonate on themselves.
Bro, you have been reading too many Patrick Robinson novels.
  #48  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:10 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Which is why you have the US or Russia lead in said treaty.
I can't find enough sense in what you are saying to respond sarcastically.
  #49  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:18 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I disagree, us having nuclear bombs has not been as effective as you suggest in preventing Russia or others from doing things we don't like.
What are you talking about? Russia being a puppet of the US and doing what we say (or vice versa) is BECAUSE we both have nuclear weapons. Good grief.

Quote:
If you haven't realized it, there are a lot of humanitarian crisis's going on, and we're actually contributing to some of them.
Which has nothing to do with the point I was making. About as incomprehensible for you to spew out as your first paragraph talking about nukes being less effective because Russia doesn't do stuff we like.

I'm unsure if you are making a good faith effort to debate and you really don't get any of this and can't grasp what myriad people in this thread have tried to tell you, or you are feigning misunderstanding and comprehension because you are playing a game...or because your brilliant idea has been pretty much universally shot down by nearly everyone else in this thread, all for valid reasons that, perhaps, you didn't see when you thought of it. I will assume it's the former, and you just don't get it, even though to me it's pretty much a no-brainer.

The point the part you responded too was to try and demonstrate to you what happens when someone who knows nothing about a situation and decides, on a whim and without consulting anyone, to change that situation for no good reason and 'see what happens', it can go very, very wrong (who know??). And the situation in Syria is MUCH less vital and of far less consequence to the US just deciding, on the whims of an orange haired monkey at the controls, to disarm...and 'see what happens'.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 11-01-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #50  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:20 PM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,641
Does anyone else think it is funny that the OP won a Nobel Prize for:

"..his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017