Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-01-2019, 02:30 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,844
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.
The Russians lost 10 million people to Hitler. You thing a few blackouts will deter them from fighting a war they know they will win?
  #52  
Old 11-01-2019, 05:57 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
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.
How did you get that from what I said? Despite us both having nukes, russia is unwilling to listen to what we say. How did you get "russia being puppet of US" I seriously want to know.
  #53  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:00 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post

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'.
First paragraph of this thread

"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"

I'm aware disarming nukes could cause bad actors to act more bad, but that happens regardless of whether we have nukes or not, and us having nukes to try to force people who aren't going to listen anyways is more dangerous than not having them.

Do you see nuclear disarmament in the foreseeable future? If not, then perhaps you're on the wrong side of the issue here and your defenses are moot in comparison to the dangers imposed by this notion of nuclear deterrence.
  #54  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:18 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Barack Obama, every paragraph you write in this thread is so rife with bad assumptions one isn't even sure where to begin to address them.
  #55  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:33 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Barack Obama, every paragraph you write in this thread is so rife with bad assumptions one isn't even sure where to begin to address them.
How so? It looks like I'm the only one in this thread with a goal of disarmament while everyone else is trying to defend it despite the facts.

Allies still develop nukes even with us having nukes.

Russia still fucks with other countries despite us having nukes

North korea still commits mass human rights violations despite us having nukes


With or without nukes these things still happen. The assumption I'm making now is that we're more likely to have another accidental nuke, whether it be from system malfunctioning or misinformation. The only way to prevent that inevitability is to disarm.
  #56  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:40 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Give up nukes? Not all of them. Maybe a 1/4 or so. How about the smallpox and other biologicals?
  #57  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:52 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post

Allies still develop nukes even with us having nukes.

Russia still fucks with other countries despite us having nukes

North korea still commits mass human rights violations despite us having nukes
People still die in car accidents despite wearing seat belts.
  #58  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:53 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
With or without nukes these things still happen.
So nuclear disarmament will have no effect on these things. Therefore bringing them up in a thread about nuclear disarmament is off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The assumption I'm making now is that we're more likely to have another accidental nuke, whether it be from system malfunctioning or misinformation. The only way to prevent that inevitability is to disarm.
And I, along with other people, have pointed out that this assumption is probably wrong. If the United States eliminated its nuclear arsenal that would be a signal for other countries to build up their own nuclear arsenals. Either to defend themselves now that they were no longer protected by America's nuclear umbrella or because they saw opportunities now that they were no longer potentially threatened by American nuclear weapons.

Right now we have nine nuclear powers. Under your proposal we would drop down to eight. And in a few years, we'd have twenty.

And most of those countries would be less stable than the United States and less able to afford adequate safeguards. So the likelihood of a nuclear weapons accident would be higher than it is now.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 11-01-2019 at 08:54 PM.
  #59  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:59 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
People still die in car accidents despite wearing seat belts.
Seat belts are designed to protect people in car accidents, nukes are designed to murder people in wars.
  #60  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:00 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
So nuclear disarmament will have no effect on these things. Therefore bringing them up in a thread about nuclear disarmament is off topic.



And I, along with other people, have pointed out that this assumption is probably wrong. If the United States eliminated its nuclear arsenal that would be a signal for other countries to build up their own nuclear arsenals. Either to defend themselves now that they were no longer protected by America's nuclear umbrella or because they saw opportunities now that they were no longer potentially threatened by American nuclear weapons.

Right now we have nine nuclear powers. Under your proposal we would drop down to eight. And in a few years, we'd have twenty.

And most of those countries would be less stable than the United States and less able to afford adequate safeguards. So the likelihood of a nuclear weapons accident would be higher than it is now.
So in other words you'll die on this hill to defend nuclear weapons.

You guys have gun nut mentality, guns make u safe right? The same way those nukes make u safe?

and no its not off topic, if we acknowledge this will happen regardless, then we should at least disarm and lower the danger.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 11-01-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #61  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:34 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
if we acknowledge this will happen regardless, then we should at least disarm and lower the danger.
I don't know how many times we have to repeat this: It will not "happen regardless." Right now, ally nations like Poland, Japan, South Korea and others have not assembled their own nuclear arsenals, and a big reason for this is because they are allied with the United States. If the U.S. were to divest itself of all its nukes, these ally nations would suddenly have huge incentive to go nuclear.

These things are interlinked.
  #62  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:24 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
So in other words you'll die on this hill to defend nuclear weapons.
No it's more like I'm thinking about the issue.

I like the think I've made a good faith effort in this thread to treat your proposal fairly and discuss the topic. But this is where I'm cashing in my chips.
  #63  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:15 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
How did you get that from what I said? Despite us both having nukes, russia is unwilling to listen to what we say. How did you get "russia being puppet of US" I seriously want to know.
Because, the fact that Russia is not willing to listen to us on thinks it deems to be in it's own interest is militantly unsurprising to anyone except, apparently, you. If Russia DID listen to us on everything and do what we say or want, that makes them a puppet. Not sure why I have to lay this out, but then you are so all over the place that perhaps even you don't understand what the hell you are saying at any given time.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #64  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:27 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
First paragraph of this thread

"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"

I'm aware disarming nukes could cause bad actors to act more bad, but that happens regardless of whether we have nukes or not, and us having nukes to try to force people who aren't going to listen anyways is more dangerous than not having them.

Do you see nuclear disarmament in the foreseeable future? If not, then perhaps you're on the wrong side of the issue here and your defenses are moot in comparison to the dangers imposed by this notion of nuclear deterrence.
But you don't seem to grasp that bad actors are constrained by the threat of total destruction, so there are limits to how bad they can be. Russia is constrained in it's foreign policy with respect to it's former territory or former, um, 'client' states by the fact that the US has nukes. Take that away and they aren't constrained anymore, or at least to the same degree because the major threat of a US nuclear strike is taken off the table. That gives them many more options, bad options from our point of view and our allies points of view than they currently have. Same goes for most other nuclear powers. The real issue, however, is it throws the current balance into chaos, with our allies AND adversaries, as well as neutrals having to scramble to try an protect themselves when the US no longer can. That would be EXTREMELY dangerous to world safety at a time when things are already chaotic enough. You would, at a stroke, destabilize a situation that has been stable for over 60 years and probably spark the very nuclear war you say you are trying to prevent.

As for your last paragraph, it's laughable. No, I don't see disarmament in the foreseeable future. With your wonderful...well, plan is giving it far too much credit...I see a nuclear exchange as likely...maybe very likely...and I see rearmament at a break neck pace as not only possible but highly probable. Countries that don't have nukes today would, for sure, be making them as rapidly as they can, hoping to get enough made to protect themselves from the major powers that have them who would be using them to further their own aims and goals. Japan and South Korea, for instance, absolutely would be getting nukes, because, unlike you, they KNOW China would be using them to push it's aims and claims in the region. Taiwan would, of course, be fucked as there is no way they would survive. You would destabilize that entire region in the first few months after your great plan...and that's just one region on the planet.

Hell, your plan would probably go down as the greatest bone headed cluster fuck in history...and we've had 3 years of freaking Trump, so that's actually a very high bar to cross.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #65  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:37 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You guys have gun nut mentality, guns make u safe right? The same way those nukes make u safe?
Don't you mean "we guys" and "make us safe"? Being that you're addressing fellow citizens as a red-blooded American patriot presenting a good-faith argument for the best course of action by his own beloved country?
  #66  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:43 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
For what it's worth, I think civilian nuke stores and private nuke ranges are a bad idea, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.
  #67  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:52 AM
Alpha Twit's Avatar
Alpha Twit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Somewhere south of normal
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
For what it's worth, I think civilian nuke stores and private nuke ranges are a bad idea, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.
I don't know if I agree. There's something to be said for just tearing it down and starting over. Think of it as tearing off a thermonuclear band-aid. Something that's going to happen so lets just do it and get on with the healing.
__________________
There's plenty few problems in this life that can't be helped by a good day's work, a good night's sleep and a few swift kicks in the right asses.
  #68  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:59 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
For what it's worth, I think civilian nuke stores and private nuke ranges are a bad idea, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.
Hey! We agree on something.
  #69  
Old 11-02-2019, 07:01 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Twit View Post
I don't know if I agree. There's something to be said for just tearing it down and starting over. Think of it as tearing off a thermonuclear band-aid. Something that's going to happen so lets just do it and get on with the healing.
The only choice we're given is how many megatons.
  #70  
Old 11-03-2019, 05:18 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
No, I don't see disarmament in the foreseeable future.
And there we have the core problem. If you do not see potential disarmament in the foreseeable future, then you should be thinking about how to get there.

My proposal, just do it. Then let things play out. Let's say Russia just went completely crazy started invading everyone. That would be preferable to having mutually insured self destruction in the case someone acts out. As I said at the very begging, it's more dangerous to have nukes than it is not to have nukes. Any political consequences to disarmament do not offset the objective dangers nuclear ownership presents.


You, and everyone else trying to defend nukes, are too weak on this issue and it's part of the reason why we are where we're at. I'll predict the future for you, countries are still going to do fucked up shit, and eventually nukes are going to be detonated. This is what, with 100% certainty, will eventually happen under your proposal to do nothing and sit idle while we all wait for mass destruction. I'd love to hear you guys say the shit you've said here to that guy who survived two nukes. It's a lot easier to bring up excuses as to why we shouldn't even attempt disarmament when you can separate yourself from the destruction and danger caused by nukes. Very very very similar to a gun nut who finally realizes guns are dangerous when his kid accidentally shoots themselves because they weren't taught to respect firearms.
  #71  
Old 11-03-2019, 06:53 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Let's just see what happens seems like collosally bad public policy.
  #72  
Old 11-03-2019, 08:42 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
My proposal, just do it. Then let things play out.
Barack Obama, I'm going to venture a guess - based off of your username - that you hold liberal views. Whenever Trump, or conservatives, propose something radical like "Let's pull out of the Paris Accord" or "let's deport all 11 million illegal immigrants" or "let's abolish Social Security," the response of liberals is never, "Sure, let's roll the dice, who could guess what would happen." It's always to tick off a long list of the many reasons why doing that could be a bad decision.

So why, when it comes to your let's-get-rid-of-all-our-nukes idea, your response is, "Let's just experiment and see what happens, regardless of the many reasons people have already provided as to why it's bad?"
  #73  
Old 11-03-2019, 09:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Barack Obama, I'm going to venture a guess - based off of your username - that you hold liberal views.
I'm not sure that's a sound assumption, let alone one supporting a tired "liberals are hypocrites" conclusion.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #74  
Old 11-03-2019, 09:35 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,619
Maybe we should launch them all and "just see what happens", I'm looking forward to that cannibalism and telepathic dog.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #75  
Old 11-03-2019, 10:27 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,673
Gorby speaks, insisting that re. nukes we must all disarm.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #76  
Old 11-03-2019, 11:08 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Maybe we should launch them all and "just see what happens", I'm looking forward to that cannibalism and telepathic dog.
Gamma World player?
  #77  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:11 AM
Dropo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Gamma World player?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_...Dog_(1975_film)
  #78  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:11 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
And there we have the core problem. If you do not see potential disarmament in the foreseeable future, then you should be thinking about how to get there.
Why? Specifically, why is it so urgent, right now, today, that we need to destabilize the entire framework that has kept our species in relative peace for over half a century? No one is really racing to build up huge stockpiles of nukes today with the exception of a few rogue states who are being hammered for it via sanctions. China isn't building a ton of new nukes, nor is Russia...what they are working on is new launchers. The US is doing the same while also working on anti-missile systems. So, tell me why you think that now, today, we need to freak out and go all radical. Also...why us? Your plan makes no sense for anyone, but why the emphasis on the US?

Quote:
My proposal, just do it. Then let things play out. Let's say Russia just went completely crazy started invading everyone. That would be preferable to having mutually insured self destruction in the case someone acts out. As I said at the very begging, it's more dangerous to have nukes than it is not to have nukes. Any political consequences to disarmament do not offset the objective dangers nuclear ownership presents.
You don't have a proposal. You have unicorn wishes and dragon tears. No major power is going to make a radical change and just hope for the best and see how it plays out. That's crazy.

Why would it be preferable for Russia to go crazy and nuke the US or Western Europe to mutually assured destruction? And you have basically ignored the 800 lb gorilla in the room. You've repeatedly been told that by taking away the US it makes it MORE likely that there will be a nuclear exchange. Do you just not understand the reasoning, or are just ignoring it because it doesn't conform to your world view or mental image?

Simply put, the probability of a nuclear war goes up if the US suddenly decides to get rid of all it's nukes. This is because all the countries who rely on the US nuclear shield are going to have to scramble to build their own nukes as rapidly as they can. THEY aren't going to just go 'well, hopefully Russia/China/North Korea/whoever won't nuke us, and if they do, well, that's better than the whole world dying...let's see what happens!'. At the same time, there will be a huge power vacuum the US will leave behind, and a small window for countries like Russia to take advantage of it. China will be behind the curve since they haven't put a ton into nuclear weapons (as opposed to launchers), so Russia is going to have a window to push it's agenda while it is absolutely dominant...with the flip side being that they aren't in any other aspect of their military or economy.

Basically, cutting the the chase, your 'proposal', if we can give it that much credit, is most likely going to lead to millions of deaths that wouldn't happen if we just continue with the status quo...which, again, there doesn't seem any compelling reason, at this late date, not too.

Quote:
You, and everyone else trying to defend nukes, are too weak on this issue and it's part of the reason why we are where we're at. I'll predict the future for you, countries are still going to do fucked up shit, and eventually nukes are going to be detonated. This is what, with 100% certainty, will eventually happen under your proposal to do nothing and sit idle while we all wait for mass destruction. I'd love to hear you guys say the shit you've said here to that guy who survived two nukes. It's a lot easier to bring up excuses as to why we shouldn't even attempt disarmament when you can separate yourself from the destruction and danger caused by nukes. Very very very similar to a gun nut who finally realizes guns are dangerous when his kid accidentally shoots themselves because they weren't taught to respect firearms.
No one is defending nukes. They are defending reality. This isn't weak, it's acknowledging that reality is real. What you are advocating (assuming this is all on the up and up, which I'm unconvinced of as the thread progresses) is, simply put, never going to happen. Because it's stupid. And dangerous.

Your predictions of the future are based on emotion and your weird world view. We've had nukes since before most of the people in this thread were born. So, your 100% certainty prediction is, simply put, coming out of your ass. You can't make such a prediction because nothing is ever 100% certain. Since you've ignored everyone trying to tell you, I'll say that the probability of someone fucking up is going to be MUCH higher if the US did this crazy crap you are advocating.

Also, way to work guns and gun nuts into your OP. At any rate, I don't see any point in continuing this. You have yet to even bother to try and address the multiple points people have raised, instead spewing crazy crap and insults.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #79  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:53 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
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.
What if they don't drop just one? What if they drop hundreds? Even if your fantasies about our cyber warfare capabilities were correct, it's not going to be all that comforting to the survivors that we managed to shut off the electricity in Russia.
  #80  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:01 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What if they don't drop just one? What if they drop hundreds? Even if your fantasies about our cyber warfare capabilities were correct, it's not going to be all that comforting to the survivors that we managed to shut off the electricity in Russia.
The reality is they probably wouldn't even (intentionally, deliberately) drop a nuke. What they would do is push their current foreign policy initiatives to the max. Russia would invade the Ukraine and, possibly (maybe even probably) go after the Baltic states as well as to re-assert dominance on Eastern Europe. NATO would have some hard choices to make...do they push back and risk nuclear war, nuclear war where Russia is clearly dominant, or do they concede? Even today, WITH the US, there is some question of whether NATO would really fight it out over the Baltic states, and pretty much they wouldn't over the Ukraine. It's the US that balances the equation. For China, they would push their South and East China Seas to the hilt, and almost certainly they would invade Taiwan. Again, the only thing keeping them from doing that is the US ALONG with our other allies, but the US is the keystone.

The thing is, doing all of that would be natural for both of those countries, but the question is, what might happen if they do that and someone else pushes back? Or if Japan builds a bunch of nukes and China continues to try and push in the East China Sea, or if NATO decides, no, we really can't afford to let Russia roll into the Baltic states or re-assert dominance over Poland and the other eastern European countries formerly under it's boot heel. IOW, if there is a miscalculation due to the changing dynamic and shift in power caused by a total US vacuum. Hell, what does the US do if China decides they don't like those freedom of navigation exercises anymore and 'accidentally' takes out a destroyer, or if they decide to make their point by attacking a carrier battle group? Does the US completely withdraw from everything, everywhere? Withdraw our military forces from around the world and bring them all home? If so, what sort of chaos would THAT additionally cause? And this leaves aside other bad actors who might decide to do something stupid, or the changing dynamic between China and Russia now that they would be the biggest nuclear powers. Things have been tense to the point of war between them in the past, and even though right now they are getting along, it's mainly because both see the other (and a few others) as checks on the US.

Like I said earlier, the OP's plan reminds me a lot of how Trump does things. He doesn't understand the dynamic, doesn't understand the history, doesn't care about any of that, and just wants to Do Something(tm) and 'see what happens'. It's exactly what happened in Syria with the Kurds. Except the OP is actually jumping the Trump by an order of magnitude.
__________________
-XT

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

Last edited by XT; 11-05-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #81  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:24 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
- snip -
Nukes make you more dangerous the same way owning a firearm you're statistically more likely to put a bullet in your head than you are to commit a justified homicide protecting your family.

You can sit here, or any one else for that matter and argue we need nukes to prevent russia from doing XYZ, but in reality russia is doing XYZ regardless if we have nukes or not, and as I repeated time and time again having nukes is more dangerous than not having them. You're justifying the ownership of WMDs with things that happen regardless of whether we have them or not. Your position here is wrong, I gave you a proposal. Create a treaty that has a goal of complete disarmament by a certain date then have the US lead that treaty. Our goal here should be to get rid of nukes, not come up with reasons why we need nukes.

You have no foreseeable future where there is complete disarmament. I do, and in that future countries still do things we don't like, the only difference is everyone isn't sitting in their chair holding a remote that launches nuclear missiles targeting millions of people.
  #82  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:31 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Like I said earlier, the OP's plan reminds me a lot of how Trump does things. He doesn't understand the dynamic, doesn't understand the history, doesn't care about any of that, and just wants to Do Something(tm) and 'see what happens'. It's exactly what happened in Syria with the Kurds. Except the OP is actually jumping the Trump by an order of magnitude.
In the very first three sentences of this thread I stated people responding likely will bring up Russia or the consequences of not having nukes, in which case those things would happen regardless if we had nukes or not. Tell me this, are the american people ready and willing to drop nukes on Russia for invading states formerly apart of the USSR?

Apparently not, we haven't used our nukes since WW2. This idea of holding a gun to each others head is stupid and ineffective. None of us have any intention to use nukes, I doubt there will ever be an intentional launch of a nuke ever again, I'm far more certain that eventually nukes will be detonated but by accident whether its malfunctioning or misinformation.
  #83  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Nukes make you more dangerous the same way owning a firearm you're statistically more likely to put a bullet in your head than you are to commit a justified homicide protecting your family. ...
"justified homicide" represents only a minuscule fraction of defensive gun uses. Likewise, nukes provide utility aside from actually killing people. Like firearms, they serve as an effective deterrent, even when not being actively fired.
  #84  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:00 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Barack, you still have not answered the question of what prevents US allies from going nuclear once or if America rids itself of its nukes. Do you think a world with a nuclear-armed South Korea, nuclear-armed Japan, nuclear-armed Poland, etc. but no nuke-armed America, is safer than the current status quo as is?
  #85  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:39 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
... and as I repeated time and time again having nukes is more dangerous than not having them. ...
This is the part of your opinion that I think many don't accept, believe, or agree with you on. That and the many other unsupported assertions of opinion as fact.
  #86  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:27 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Nukes make you more dangerous the same way owning a firearm you're statistically more likely to put a bullet in your head than you are to commit a justified homicide protecting your family.
And yet, what do you use to back up your opinion here with? There are certainly more nukes in the world today than there were in 1945, yet the only time they have ever been used in combat was in 1945. There were a LOT more nukes back in the cold war era, yet they were never used. So, even if I accept your gun analogy (way to keep pushing that btw), there is no evidence for your assertion. IOW, you are pulling it out of your ass. Again.

Quote:
You can sit here, or any one else for that matter and argue we need nukes to prevent russia from doing XYZ, but in reality russia is doing XYZ regardless if we have nukes or not, and as I repeated time and time again having nukes is more dangerous than not having them. You're justifying the ownership of WMDs with things that happen regardless of whether we have them or not. Your position here is wrong, I gave you a proposal. Create a treaty that has a goal of complete disarmament by a certain date then have the US lead that treaty. Our goal here should be to get rid of nukes, not come up with reasons why we need nukes.
No, Russia is NOT doing XYZ. That's the point you seem to be incapable of grasping. They AREN'T in fact, going full out in the Ukraine, with a major invasion. They are NOT invading or otherwise seeking to re-dominate Eastern Europe, or specifically the Baltic states. The reason they are not doing that is that the balance of power doesn't favor them, and a big part of that is the US. And a big part of the reason why they don't want to tangle with the US is we have nukes too.

As for a treaty to limit arms, I have no issue with that. I have an issue with your silly, crazy 'Let's disarm our nukes and see what happens' approach. It won't work. It won't work for all the reasons you've been told and have handwaved away. It's a stupid idea that is also never going to happen because, frankly, everyone BUT you seems to see how stupid it is.

I get it. Nukes scare you or something. They are scary. And mistakes could happen. They have nearly happened in the past. But the world has, frankly, but more peaceful in the past 70 odd years than it was in the previous 200 or so. We haven't had a direct major powers conflict since WWII, and a new one seems unlikely. Mainly, this is because all the major powers have nukes and any sort of direct conflict between them could lead to total destruction of not only the combatants but everyone else.

If you want to reduce or even eliminate nuclear weapons you have to do it jointly, with everyone on board doing it. At a minimum, the major players need to agree to reduction in kind. China would LOVE it if nukes were completely off the table. The US would like it even more. An elimination of nuclear weapons plays right into the US's hands, frankly, as our conventional forces are so far above everyone else it would seal our military dominance. Russia is who wouldn't like it, since in every other way except nuclear weapons, they are a 2nd rate power. At the same time, they want to recapture their former glory and regain all the ground they lost after the break up of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for them, their former 'allies' aren't too keen on that, so the only way to do it is by force.

Quote:
You have no foreseeable future where there is complete disarmament. I do, and in that future countries still do things we don't like, the only difference is everyone isn't sitting in their chair holding a remote that launches nuclear missiles targeting millions of people.
No, I don't see a foreseeable future with complete disarmament. Sorry, but you don't either. Your crazy plan wouldn't see complete disarmament in any way, shape or form for all the reasons pointed out to you. The biggest being that just because the US disarms, doesn't mean everyone else would. In fact, I guarantee that they wouldn't. What would happen is many nations that currently don't have nukes would scramble to get them, those with them would scramble to leverage them to gain strategic goals that currently are beyond them, and the result would be a less stable world with the use of a nuke being more likely to happen.

That's the thing you can't seem to get. While having nukes today is a risk, it's a fairly low risk. After all, we've now had them longer than I, you and probably most posters on this board have been alive. Yet they have only ever been used in one conflict...the last conflict that major powers directly went to war with each other. What you propose to do is to unbalance the equation and destabilize a situation that's been stable for over half a century and 'see what happens', without a clear idea of what that might be and, frankly, without a seeming understanding of even how the dynamic works or what even the most obvious effects would be. Like I said...this is something Trump would be proud of.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #87  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:34 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
In the very first three sentences of this thread I stated people responding likely will bring up Russia or the consequences of not having nukes, in which case those things would happen regardless if we had nukes or not. Tell me this, are the american people ready and willing to drop nukes on Russia for invading states formerly apart of the USSR?
Depends on which states you mean, doesn't it? Those states that are in NATO? Yeah, of course...that's what a mutual defense treaty is for. Those states (chiefly the Ukraine) that aren't? Probably not, but we would certainly push back with sanctions and possibly military aid to the embattled nation. Which is something we couldn't do if we didn't have nukes backing us up and they did.

People have brought this up to you because you don't seem to understand even the basics of the international dynamics between the US and the rest of the world. You are trying to formulate...well, saying 'policy' is really giving you too much credit but a theory I guess based on what is clearly a little understood subject to you, and I can see you are getting frustrated by the lack of a warm response to your cherished idea.

Quote:
Apparently not, we haven't used our nukes since WW2. This idea of holding a gun to each others head is stupid and ineffective. None of us have any intention to use nukes, I doubt there will ever be an intentional launch of a nuke ever again, I'm far more certain that eventually nukes will be detonated but by accident whether its malfunctioning or misinformation.
You say that, but the first sentence contradicts your second. Clearly it HAS been effective and not stupid at all. It's worked and continue to work. We have not HAD to drop nukes on Russia because Russia hasn't tried to invade western Europe and NATO. Do you suppose this is an accident?

Sorry, but you are, again, simply wrong. The US would absolutely have used nukes had we gone to full on war with the Soviet Union. We knew it and they knew. And, conversely, we knew they would use nukes as well. The fact that you think everyone was just bluffing is another indication that you really don't understand even the basics of this subject.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #88  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:41 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You, and everyone else trying to defend nukes, are too weak on this issue and it's part of the reason why we are where we're at. I'll predict the future for you, countries are still going to do fucked up shit, and eventually nukes are going to be detonated. This is what, with 100% certainty, will eventually happen under your proposal to do nothing and sit idle while we all wait for mass destruction.
The point you don't seem to get is that the chances of countries doing fucked up shit and detonating nukes goes up if the US unilaterally disarms. Up, not down - up.
Quote:
I'd love to hear you guys say the shit you've said here to that guy who survived two nukes.
My Japanese and his hearing probably aren't that good, but I'll give it a shot.

HEY DOUBLE-HIBAKUSHI GUY! IT'S BETTER IF THE US DOESN'T UNILATERALLY DISARM!

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Shodan
  #89  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:06 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The point you don't seem to get is that the chances of countries doing fucked up shit and detonating nukes goes up if the US unilaterally disarms. Up, not down - up.
My Japanese and his hearing probably aren't that good, but I'll give it a shot.

HEY DOUBLE-HIBAKUSHI GUY! IT'S BETTER IF THE US DOESN'T UNILATERALLY DISARM!

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Shodan
How about multilaterally and we create a goal to reduce our nuclear arsenal by so much each year?
  #90  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:07 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Barack, you still have not answered the question of what prevents US allies from going nuclear once or if America rids itself of its nukes. Do you think a world with a nuclear-armed South Korea, nuclear-armed Japan, nuclear-armed Poland, etc. but no nuke-armed America, is safer than the current status quo as is?
Concern for the survival of the human race perhaps?
  #91  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:13 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
How about multilaterally and we create a goal to reduce our nuclear arsenal by so much each year?
"Multilaterally" is rather different than the US just disarms and let's see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity
Barack, you still have not answered the question of what prevents US allies from going nuclear once or if America rids itself of its nukes. Do you think a world with a nuclear-armed South Korea, nuclear-armed Japan, nuclear-armed Poland, etc. but no nuke-armed America, is safer than the current status quo as is?
Concern for the survival of the human race perhaps?
That's a non sequitur.

Are you more concerned about the survival of the human race if North and South Korea, Japan, Poland, Russia, etc., have nuclear weapons and the US does not?

Regards,
Shodan
  #92  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:37 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
How about multilaterally and we create a goal to reduce our nuclear arsenal by so much each year?
You probably should have lead with that one..
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #93  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:39 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Concern for the survival of the human race perhaps?
Did you actually read the question being asked you? Because, clearly, you didn't answer it.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #94  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:39 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You probably should have lead with that one..
Well I initially made the thread to get responses and I've been lead to formulate this conclusion. Now when do we disarm all the nukes? 2050? 2100? 2150?
  #95  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:57 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Well I initially made the thread to get responses and I've been lead to formulate this conclusion. Now when do we disarm all the nukes? 2050? 2100? 2150?
Chances are, the only time we'll ever dismantle our nukes is if some newer, even deadlier and more devastating weapon is invented that surpasses nukes (if such a technology is possible.)
  #96  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:05 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,903
Why not invade Russia and see what happens? They have never used their nukes, so, they aren’t gonna. If it works, China next, then NK, Pakistan, India, France and England, and we won’t ever even need our nukes.
  #97  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:26 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Well I initially made the thread to get responses and I've been lead to formulate this conclusion. Now when do we disarm all the nukes? 2050? 2100? 2150?
I'd guess that it won't be any time soon, if ever. Basically, Russia gets nothing out of complete nuclear disarmament. The biggest beneficiary of total, global disarmament is the US because we have the largest and most powerful conventional military. China gets some benefit out of it, as they don't have a huge investment, but total disarmament weakens them also, strategically. And this is just taking into account the dynamic of the big 3. Then you have to start looking at the smaller countries that have nukes...and when you do, you will find that they have no incentive to disarm either, an in fact a lot of incentive to keep their nukes. Then you have all of the various powers who WANT to be nuclear powers, or are powers but not officially. At that point you have to recalculate even the big 3's stance.

Basically, IF you could get everyone to disarm then it would benefit the US and probably NATO/EU...and really, no one else. Russia would be the big loser, but there would be a lot of losers. Mainly the winners would be on the US side. Of course, that's with the fantasy that we COULD get everyone to disarm. As that's not realistic, any country that disarms is going to be in a MUCH weaker position (unless they are a direct US ally...and unless someone takes your original crazy plan seriously and disarms the US, in which case it would be complete chaos).

So...realistically, we will perhaps have reductions in types of nukes or categories of nukes, but never get rid of them completely. Things the various powers are doing will mitigate the threat, or increase it using new launch vehicles designed to get around the mitigation. And things will pretty much go on as they have been.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #98  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:06 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,297
Russia will never give up its nukes, because without them it's got nothing. Russia's GDP is 12th in the world, behind such geopolitical powerhouses as Italy, Brazil and Canada.

The only way Russia maintains any geopolitical clout is with the threat posed by their nuclear arsenal. They shouldn't even be in the UN security council - it's their nukes that keep them there.
  #99  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:15 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Chances are, the only time we'll ever dismantle our nukes is if some newer, even deadlier and more devastating weapon is invented that surpasses nukes (if such a technology is possible.)
Cyber warfare tactics with malware that spreads across networks could be used to fuck with infrastructure, grids, hospitals, etc.. and we already do that and there were reports earlier this year of US developed malware being found on Russian power grids.

Genetically modifying diseases or animals to cause chaos is a possibility as well.

I think there a lot of dangerous things potentially more effective than nukes, and I don't think having those things will reduce nukes. the only way we're going to reduce nukes is if putin loses to a bunch of young progressives that take over the Russian government and come up with a better solution to keep their foothold without needing to use nukes as threats.
  #100  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:19 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Cyber warfare tactics with malware that spreads across networks could be used to fuck with infrastructure, grids, hospitals, etc.. and we already do that and there were reports earlier this year of US developed malware being found on Russian power grids.

Genetically modifying diseases or animals to cause chaos is a possibility as well.

I think there a lot of dangerous things potentially more effective than nukes, and I don't think having those things will reduce nukes. the only way we're going to reduce nukes is if putin loses to a bunch of young progressives that take over the Russian government and come up with a better solution to keep their foothold without needing to use nukes as threats.
I'm pretty sure that in Russia, disarming nukes completely would be even more of a political nonstarter than here in the US. Partial nuke reduction - maybe, such as akin to SALT or START. But for Russia to go completely nuke-free is a pipe dream; they'd be even more adamant about holding on to their arsenal than us.
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 09:15 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