Trump wants more nukes

[imported_tajmahal]

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Here you go, Barry McGuire Eve of Destruction in 1965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
only 51 years and counting. (it's been a long Eve)

 

[fskimospy]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a reasonably perfect BMD technology existed today. Would you spend the money to build the system or would you not do so because you feel it's "destabilizing"?

Good question, that would be a tough one. The idea that we could vaporize any other country on earth without fear of retaliation would be highly destabilizing but it could be worth it.

Then again there seems to be no plausible path to any such 'reasonably perfect' technology existing so that's a problem, haha. As I said, the fact that its likely to be ineffective is a big part of the problem.

 

[glenn1]

Good question, that would be a tough one. The idea that we could vaporize any other country on earth without fear of retaliation would be highly destabilizing but it could be worth it.

Then again there seems to be no plausible path to any such 'reasonably perfect' technology existing so that's a problem, haha. As I said, the fact that its likely to be ineffective is a big part of the problem.

If a warhead was headed for NYC right now and you were offered a system with a 20% chance of success, would you take it or would you simply say "nah man, I'd prefer to be vaporized if it's that ineffective."

 

[UglyCasanova]

Didn't read through the thread so this has probably been addressed, but our nuclear arsenal is frighteningly outdated. I'm much less concerned about their ability to strike (which I'm sure they are capable of) compared to something going wrong and one being detonated unintentionally due to old tech. We don't need more nukes - and less is most assuredly better - but we do need to modernize them.

 

[fskimospy]

If a warhead was headed for NYC right now and you were offered a system with a 20% chance of success, would you take it or would you simply say "nah man, I'd prefer to be vaporized if it's that ineffective."

Bad question.

Better question: does the creation of a BMD system make it more likely or less likely that I or my fellow Americans will be harmed/killed in some sort of conflict? There's a good chance that answer is 'more likely'. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (har) to determine that spending billions to make me less safe is a bad investment. Gotta be smart with our money.

 

[xthetenth]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a reasonably perfect BMD technology existed today. Would you spend the money to build the system or would you not do so because you feel it's "destabilizing"?

Build it to a degree that prevented smaller players from having good odds and don't go past that because if the enemy goes full into the Moscow Criterion (IE we just need to be able to take out one city for a meaningful deterrent), it'd take a ruinous level of expenditure to be able to block all of a major nuclear power's arsenal launched at any arbitrary potential target. Offensive nuclear forces only have to be able to overwhelm the defenses at one place of the attacker's choosing after all.

If a warhead was headed for NYC right now and you were offered a system with a 20% chance of success, would you take it or would you simply say "nah man, I'd prefer to be vaporized if it's that ineffective."

Why is this warhead inbound on NYC? You can't meaningfully strip something like that out of context and have it make any sense.

 

[theeedude]

How is he going to pay for them? Borrow, and cause higher interest rates for everyone, which is already happening in anticipation.

 

[UglyCasanova]

How is he going to pay for them? Borrow, and cause higher interest rates for everyone, which is already happening in anticipation.

I'd cut military spending elsewhere and use it to modernize our nuclear arsenal.

 

[glenn1]

Bad question.

Better question: does the creation of a BMD system make it more likely or less likely that I or my fellow Americans will be harmed/killed in some sort of conflict? There's a good chance that answer is 'more likely'. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (har) to determine that spending billions to make me less safe is a bad investment. Gotta be smart with our money.

Please state your causal reason why it would. Previous technologies that have made past state of the art weapons systems obsolete (e.g. gunpowder weapons versus armored cavalry) haven't led to inevitable attack by the other side threatened by this new technology. It almost sounds to me that you care more about Russia feeling threatened than the security of American citizens and that you fear an ascendent America more than a nuclear weapon pointed at you.

Build it to a degree that prevented smaller players from having good odds and don't go past that because if the enemy goes full into the Moscow Criterion (IE we just need to be able to take out one city for a meaningful deterrent), it'd take a ruinous level of expenditure to be able to block all of a major nuclear power's arsenal launched at any arbitrary potential target. Offensive nuclear forces only have to be able to overwhelm the defenses at one place of the attacker's choosing after all.

Why is this warhead inbound on NYC? You can't meaningfully strip something like that out of context and have it make any sense.

Because it's our largest city and a highly probable target of such a weapon? Substitute Washington DC if you prefer but since Fskimospy lives in NYC I felt the "self-interest" angle was a reasonable one to explore.

 

[fskimospy]

Please state your causal reason why it would. Previous technologies that have made past state of the art weapons systems obsolete (e.g. gunpowder weapons versus armored cavalry) haven't led to inevitable attack by the other side threatened by this new technology. It almost sounds to me that you care more about Russia feeling threatened than the security of American citizens and that you fear an ascendent America more than a nuclear weapon pointed at you.

Because the use of nuclear weapons in warfare now is in large part curtailed by the knowledge that such use would be met with retaliation. If a country feels that they will no longer be capable of effective retaliation and therefore at the mercy of another state they may act rashly. History is filled with examples of this.

Sounds like you haven't thought this through.

Because it's our largest city and a highly probable target of such a weapon? Substitute Washington DC if you prefer but since Fskimospy lives in NYC I felt the "self-interest" angle was a reasonable one to explore.

You missed his whole point.

 

[glenn1]

Because the use of nuclear weapons in warfare now is in large part curtailed by the knowledge that such use would be met with retaliation. If a country feels that they will no longer be capable of effective retaliation and therefore at the mercy of another state they may act rashly. History is filled with examples of this.

Sounds like you haven't thought this through.



You missed his whole point.

Feel free to provide some here. I'll wait.

 

[fskimospy]

Feel free to provide some here. I'll wait.

World War 1

 

[glenn1]

World War 1

So which technology do you feel was the precipitating cause of World War 1 instead of the commonly cited assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the resulting triggering of multiple alliances?

 

[Darwin333]

Then why did you vote for and support the candidate that russia wanted?

Out of curiosity, if Iran came out and supported Hillary would it have swayed your vote in any way?

 

[fskimospy]

So which technology do you feel was the precipitating cause of World War 1 instead of the commonly cited assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the resulting triggering of multiple alliances?

I think that a power (Germany) was in a situation where it believed it was rapidly approaching a militarily unwinnable situation due to the nature of the alliance against it and the steadily increasing military power of Russia. It felt compelled to roll the dice while it could still win and acted rashly, offering Austria-Hungary the infamous 'blank check' and setting off arguably the greatest catastrophe in the history of civilization.

 

[qliveur]

Our newest ICBMs are over 40 years old.

Russia has never stopped developing new ones.

 

[JSt0rm]

Out of curiosity, if Iran came out and supported Hillary would it have swayed your vote in any way?

maybe.

 

[JSt0rm]

Our newest ICBMs are over 40 years old.

Russia has never stopped developing new ones.

Dude they have a new stealth nuke missile... its called... wait for it...

SATAN 2

fuck yeah. Thats some metal shit right there.

 

[pauldun170]

Didn't read through the thread so this has probably been addressed, but our nuclear arsenal is frighteningly outdated. I'm much less concerned about their ability to strike (which I'm sure they are capable of) compared to something going wrong and one being detonated unintentionally due to old tech. We don't need more nukes - and less is most assuredly better - but we do need to modernize them.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/trump-wants-more-nukes.2495314/page-3#post-38645028

 

[glenn1]

I think that a power (Germany) was in a situation where it believed it was rapidly approaching a militarily unwinnable situation due to the nature of the alliance against it and the steadily increasing military power of Russia. It felt compelled to roll the dice while it could still win and acted rashly, offering Austria-Hungary the infamous 'blank check' and setting off arguably the greatest catastrophe in the history of civilization.

So for sake of argument I'll agree an "alliance" was a new technology and that Germany acted for the reasons you cited (I disagree but that's beside the point). That's still only one example you said history is "full of them." Surely with so many to choose from you can cite one where a new technology was the proximate cause of the war and will be directly relevant to why Russia or others would attack America if we were to build a BMD system.

 

[fskimospy]

So for sake of argument I'll agree an "alliance" was a new technology and that Germany acted for the reasons you cited (I disagree but that's beside the point). That's still only one example you said history is "full of them." Surely with so many to choose from you can cite one where a new technology was the proximate cause of the war and will be directly relevant to why Russia or others would attack America if we were to build a BMD system.

It doesn't have to be technology, anything that puts a power into that situation is destabilizing. You asked for an example, I gave you a really obvious one with catastrophic consequences. I'm not going to keep listing more and more until you're satisfied.

 

[kage69]

Here you go, Barry McGuire Eve of Destruction in 1965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
only 51 years and counting. (it's been a long Eve)

Fred Thompson = disappoint.

Same for me, again.

 

[ivwshane]

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/trump-wants-more-nukes.2495314/page-3#post-38645028

I think you'll have to repost this on every page because it seems that multiple people aren't aware that our nuclear systems are being upgraded. Perhaps you could tweet about it and direct it at trump (he apparently isn't aware of it either).

 

[glenn1]

It doesn't have to be technology, anything that puts a power into that situation is destabilizing. You asked for an example, I gave you a really obvious one with catastrophic consequences. I'm not going to keep listing more and more until you're satisfied.

It wasn't an obvious example since Germany had just defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War not long before and was engaged in an arms race with Britain to try to achieve naval superiority. Even if you discount the Archduke shooting the reality was closer to the opposite of what you stated - Germany was willing to enter the war because they felt they could WIN the war not because they felt they were in an "unwinnable" situation. Hell, if anything the Germans thought they had an near unbeatable technological advantage of their General Staff (innovative at the time of the earlier war), logistics mobilization systems, dreadnought naval vessels, and the Schlieffen Plan.

 

[fskimospy]

It wasn't an obvious example since Germany had just defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War not long before and was engaged in an arms race with Britain to try to achieve naval superiority. Even if you discount the Archduke shooting the reality was closer to the opposite of what you stated - Germany was willing to enter the war because they felt they could WIN the war not because they felt they were in an "unwinnable" situation. Hell, if anything the Germans thought they had an near unbeatable technological advantage of their General Staff (innovative at the time of the earlier war), logistics mobilization systems, dreadnought naval vessels, and the Schlieffen Plan.

You misunderstand my point. Germany entered the war then because they thought they could still win THEN, but thought that victory would be impossible in the near future due to the increasing military power of Russia. Therefore they decided to enter into war then instead of later. It's very easy to see how this applies to the current situation. Imagine the US is building a 'perfect' BMD system. You can't build that overnight, meaning there will be a period where foreign powers with strategic nuclear arsenals still have an effective counter to ours but can see a time in the near future where they no longer will. That provides a very strong incentive to act rashly. Does it make more sense now as to why BMD systems are destabilizing?