who are we to say who should or shouldn't have nukes?

[fskimospy]

Remember MAD (mutually assured destruction) only works with the leaders are not actually mad.

What leaders do you believe to be insane, and what actions have they taken that make you think so?

 

[fskimospy]

I am just surprised that more nations have not invented nukes yet. Think about it, the US invented nukes back when vacuum tubes were high tech.

It's really not particularly surprising at all. The technology needed is highly specialized and not usefully adaptable to other civilian pursuits. Because of that there really aren't any shortcuts for aspiring nuclear powers to take, they have to do the same crap that we did back in the 1940's basically.

 

[DaveSimmons]

What leaders do you believe to be insane, and what actions have they taken that make you think so?

Dear Leader allowed 10% of his citizens to starve to death while creating his nukes.

MAD does assume the nation's leaders care about the survival of their citizens and not just themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Dear Leader allowed 10% of his citizens to starve to death while creating his nukes.

MAD does assume the nation's leaders care about the survival of their citizens and not just themselves.

What part of allowing his people to starve to death is 'insane', at least as it pertains to him using nuclear weapons? It's certainly horrible from a moral standpoint, but if your perspective is to remain in power at all costs (which his certainly was), it was a perfectly rational decision to make.

As for the assumption that MAD requires people to care about their population, that's not accurate. MAD doesn't assume that at all. MAD assumes that both parties can visit such destruction on each other that nuclear war is not an option, and the US can certainly do that to North Korea. While we might not kill their leadership in a counterstrike (although we very well could), we would render their country so utterly ruined that the source of economic support the regime relies upon to prop up their lifestyle would be totally destroyed. That's what they actually care about, and we could easily... easily destroy that.

MAD would work on North Korea just fine. The only time it wouldn't work would be if the regime thought they had nothing to lose, ie: a US invasion of North Korea.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, but we'll never use them again, so who fucking cares?

We pussy foot around with slap-on-the-wrist sanctions that don't accomplish anything. If we really want to police the world, then we should fucking do it. Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, and Pakistan should be turned in to glass and their oil fields seized. We don't have the balls to do that, so we should just stay the fuck out of it.

Man are you an immoral jerkoff.

First, you are apparently sad about the idea we might not use them again.

The bad news for a better person is, it's almost inevitable they get used at some point if they're still around. Which they do not need to be.

You're wrong about 'pussy-footing' as well. While they might not be especially effective at letting us decide who rules other countries on the cheap as our leaders want, they devastate foreign economies; our sanctions against Iraq, while not removing Saddam, some reports say they killed hundreds of thousands in horrific suffering from things like disease, mostly children; they at least killed many. 'Who cares' is many of our citizens' attitude.

Your talk of mass murder is not only worth of the Nazis, in ways it's worse - at least the people there believed lies that the Jews were a huge threat. You are just a sociopath.

Calling the lack of morality preventing killion millions 'balls' just shows that to be the case.

It should make you happy to know the US has come plenty close to using nukes, without a good reason - from power games in the Cuban Missile Crisis to Nixon wanting to in Vietnam.

Attitudes like yours will greatly push the rest of the world to get nukes, greatly increasing the risks they'll be used.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What part of allowing his people to starve to death is 'insane', at least as it pertains to him using nuclear weapons? It's certainly horrible from a moral standpoint, but if your perspective is to remain in power at all costs (which his certainly was), it was a perfectly rational decision to make.

As for the assumption that MAD requires people to care about their population, that's not accurate. MAD doesn't assume that at all. MAD assumes that both parties can visit such destruction on each other that nuclear war is not an option, and the US can certainly do that to North Korea. While we might not kill their leadership in a counterstrike (although we very well could), we would render their country so utterly ruined that the source of economic support the regime relies upon to prop up their lifestyle would be totally destroyed. That's what they actually care about, and we could easily... easily destroy that.

MAD would work on North Korea just fine. The only time it wouldn't work would be if the regime thought they had nothing to lose, ie: a US invasion of North Korea.

Insane is not the same as responsible and is overused. One might be perfectly sane and come to the conclusion that because of religion or political ideology it is perfectly acceptable to use nukes especially if there is a way to deny it. A country like iran could provide a nuke for deployment aboard a US bound ship. A good size device detonated in Boston harbor would not be good for us and certainly something Iran might like. How would one do forensics on vaporized evidence? Back to "insane"- I have no doubt Hitler was quite aware of what he was doing but he was never able to make them because it was too late in the war. If he could have what absolute right would anyone have to stop him? None really as it comes down keeping such things out of the hands of some people because it's feasable to do so.

 

[Craig234]

MAD worked well on North Korea. It's the purportedly rational powers that have been bigger risks for nuclear war.

People forget that major nations have gone to extremes for power and to gain by exploiting others.

That's been at the root of all kinds of unnecessary war, huge expense, many casualties of that nation's citizens.

The closest the world has come to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis between the two largest powers.

Terrorists nukes are a risk - increased by not eliminating weapons.

 

[drebo]

Are you seriously implying that we should nuke 4 entire countries?

No, I'm implying that if we want to police the world, then we should just fucking do it, according to our beliefs and principles.

Right now, we're spending trillions of dollars trying to police the world in a "politically correct" manner. Fuck that. If we want to run the world, then we need to fucking run the world.

This is what should have happened in Afganistan:

US to Afganistan: Some of your citizens fucked with us. You have 24 hours to turn every single Al Qaeda member in your jurisdiction over to us or we bomb you back to the stone age.

They comply and we deal with the terrorists. Or, they don't comply and we firebomb them until there is not a single building left in the entire country. No long, drawn out wars. No unnecessary American deaths. No untold billions of dollars spent on corrupt military contracts. Everything is taken care of and resolved in a matter of days, not decades.

If we are to be the world police, then we need to police it not according to anyone else's standards, but according to our own.

Unless we have the balls to do that, we have no business being the world's police. And, clearly, we don't have the balls.

 

[fskimospy]

Insane is not the same as responsible and is overused. One might be perfectly sane and come to the conclusion that because of religion or political ideology it is perfectly acceptable to use nukes especially if there is a way to deny it. A country like iran could provide a nuke for deployment aboard a US bound ship. A good size device detonated in Boston harbor would not be good for us and certainly something Iran might like. How would one do forensics on vaporized evidence? Back to "insane"- I have no doubt Hitler was quite aware of what he was doing but he was never able to make them because it was too late in the war. If he could have what absolute right would anyone have to stop him? None really as it comes down keeping such things out of the hands of some people because it's feasable to do so.

I take it you've never heard of nuclear forensics. There is actually an entire field based around doing forensic testing on 'vaporized evidence' for the express purpose of tracing the bomb back to its origin, and we can most certainly do that. Way to deny it? Highly unlikely. So really, the idea that Iran has the potential to nuke the US while remaining undetected is a fantasy, or at a minimum highly improbable. (certainly improbable enough to make it a horrible bet for them to make)

For a primer on the field, read this: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf The main challenges in nuclear forensics are returning timely results, not so much a problem with eventually figuring out where it came from. (time being important because naturally there will be great political pressure to react quickly after a nuclear attack)

We should absolutely endeavor to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people such as Iran, but we should do this for real reasons, not made up ones. Iran having a nuclear weapon decisively alters the balance of power in the Middle East, and not in our favor. That's why we should stop them, not because they are going to go insane and try to nuke Boston.

 

[drebo]

Man are you an immoral jerkoff.

First, you are apparently sad about the idea we might not use them again.

The bad news for a better person is, it's almost inevitable they get used at some point if they're still around. Which they do not need to be.

You're wrong about 'pussy-footing' as well. While they might not be especially effective at letting us decide who rules other countries on the cheap as our leaders want, they devastate foreign economies; our sanctions against Iraq, while not removing Saddam, some reports say they killed hundreds of thousands in horrific suffering from things like disease, mostly children; they at least killed many. 'Who cares' is many of our citizens' attitude.

Your talk of mass murder is not only worth of the Nazis, in ways it's worse - at least the people there believed lies that the Jews were a huge threat. You are just a sociopath.

Calling the lack of morality preventing killion millions 'balls' just shows that to be the case.

It should make you happy to know the US has come plenty close to using nukes, without a good reason - from power games in the Cuban Missile Crisis to Nixon wanting to in Vietnam.

Attitudes like yours will greatly push the rest of the world to get nukes, greatly increasing the risks they'll be used.

So you agree that our sanctions are useless, then. Glad to see that.

I'm not sad that the US probably isn't going to use their nukes. I'm sad that if it came time to use them, we probably wouldn't. Which will lead to great suffering on our own soil.

Call me immoral for placing the lives of fellow American Citizens before the lives of people who would do us harm if you want, but any rational person sees that kind of attitude being the downfall of the US in less than 50 years. We're more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of us than we are with our own wellbeing. That's pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

 

[fskimospy]

So you agree that our sanctions are useless, then. Glad to see that.

I'm not sad that the US probably isn't going to use their nukes. I'm sad that if it came time to use them, we probably wouldn't. Which will lead to great suffering on our own soil.

Call me immoral for placing the lives of fellow American Citizens before the lives of people who would do us harm if you want, but any rational person sees that kind of attitude being the downfall of the US in less than 50 years. We're more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of us than we are with our own wellbeing. That's pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

Sanctions aren't useless, analysis points to the idea that they are only useless when actually applied. (crazy, I know) There's a fairly good chance that the threat of sanctions can modify a state's behavior, but generally once the side that will be sanctioned doesn't back down both sides are incentivized to sanction anyway and neither side gets what it wants. There's some really neat game theory on this idea.

The theory basically goes that in order for the threat of sanctions to work on the other guys you need to maintain a credible threat, which involves actually implementing sanctions on people even when you know they won't work.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I'm implying that if we want to police the world, then we should just fucking do it, according to our beliefs and principles.

Right now, we're spending trillions of dollars trying to police the world in a "politically correct" manner. Fuck that. If we want to run the world, then we need to fucking run the world.

This is what should have happened in Afganistan:

US to Afganistan: Some of your citizens fucked with us. You have 24 hours to turn every single Al Qaeda member in your jurisdiction over to us or we bomb you back to the stone age.

They comply and we deal with the terrorists. Or, they don't comply and we firebomb them until there is not a single building left in the entire country. No long, drawn out wars. No unnecessary American deaths. No untold billions of dollars spent on corrupt military contracts. Everything is taken care of and resolved in a matter of days, not decades.

If we are to be the world police, then we need to police it not according to anyone else's standards, but according to our own.

Unless we have the balls to do that, we have no business being the world's police. And, clearly, we don't have the balls.

That sounds interesting but Afghanistan isn't a nation in the sense Westerners understand. It was and largely still a region comprised of loosly associated autonomous tribal governments. They are as much citizens of a nation because of a name as the US is for Colombians because "America" appears somewhere in where they're located.

Balls are fine unless theres no brain to tell you when and when not to whip them out.

 

[davmat787]

I take it you've never heard of nuclear forensics. There is actually an entire field based around doing forensic testing on 'vaporized evidence' for the express purpose of tracing the bomb back to its origin, and we can most certainly do that. Way to deny it? Highly unlikely. So really, the idea that Iran has the potential to nuke the US while remaining undetected is a fantasy, or at a minimum highly improbable. (certainly improbable enough to make it a horrible bet for them to make)

For a primer on the field, read this: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf The main challenges in nuclear forensics are returning timely results, not so much a problem with eventually figuring out where it came from. (time being important because naturally there will be great political pressure to react quickly after a nuclear attack)

We should absolutely endeavor to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people such as Iran, but we should do this for real reasons, not made up ones. Iran having a nuclear weapon decisively alters the balance of power in the Middle East, and not in our favor. That's why we should stop them, not because they are going to go insane and try to nuke Boston.

That is basically my understanding as well, that any nuclear device can be traced back to exactly where it is manufactured. Of course for this to work you have to have captured the device or sample of its radioactive ingredients, or be testing the fallout of a disaster that already happened.

Still, it should serve as somewhat of a deterrent I would think.

Which brings up an interesting question. Let us pretend a nuclear device is exploded in Chicago. It can be proven it was done by muslim terrorists with ties to Iran, AND the device is proven to have originated there.

Under this scenario, who would approve of returning the favor on Tehran or another Iranian city? I am asking this under the context of MAD being discussed in this thread as a very useful deterrent. But for MAD to work, you have to return the favor, right?

 

[Ausm]

China owns us so we really can't tell them what to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I take it you've never heard of nuclear forensics. There is actually an entire field based around doing forensic testing on 'vaporized evidence' for the express purpose of tracing the bomb back to its origin, and we can most certainly do that. Way to deny it? Highly unlikely. So really, the idea that Iran has the potential to nuke the US while remaining undetected is a fantasy, or at a minimum highly improbable. (certainly improbable enough to make it a horrible bet for them to make)

For a primer on the field, read this: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf The main challenges in nuclear forensics are returning timely results, not so much a problem with eventually figuring out where it came from. (time being important because naturally there will be great political pressure to react quickly after a nuclear attack)

We should absolutely endeavor to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people such as Iran, but we should do this for real reasons, not made up ones. Iran having a nuclear weapon decisively alters the balance of power in the Middle East, and not in our favor. That's why we should stop them, not because they are going to go insane and try to nuke Boston.

Any lab evidence will be looked at with the same degree of confidence as our claims of mobile chemical factories. Perhaps I need to rephrase this a bit and say evidence that people will accept as definitive and alleviates doubts in the public mind such that practical action can be taken commensurate with the attack. Missiles flying in is as clear as out gets and why few nations are likely to use them. I disagree that nuclear terrorism is off the table however I understand that is not the sole issue

 

[fskimospy]

Any lab evidence will be looked at with the same degree of confidence as our claims of mobile chemical factories. Perhaps I need to rephrase this a bit and say evidence that people will accept as definitive and alleviates doubts in the public mind such that practical action can be taken commensurate with the attack. Missiles flying in is as clear as out gets and why few nations are likely to use them. I disagree that nuclear terrorism is off the table however I understand that is not the sole issue

I sincerely, sincerely doubt that. If a city of ours gets nuked, people will want revenge and they will take it on the most likely culprit, and nuclear forensics works pretty well. We might not nuke them back, but I would bet every dime that I own that if Iran were linked to a nuclear attack on the United States that in a matter of months the leadership in Iran would be dead, in jail, or in hiding.

For the life of me I cannot envision a single rational use of nuclear weapons by Iran unless the survival of the regime was at stake. The idea that they are going to just start nuking people is silliness in my opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

That is basically my understanding as well, that any nuclear device can be traced back to exactly where it is manufactured. Of course for this to work you have to have captured the device or sample of its radioactive ingredients, or be testing the fallout of a disaster that already happened.

Still, it should serve as somewhat of a deterrent I would think.

Which brings up an interesting question. Let us pretend a nuclear device is exploded in Chicago. It can be proven it was done by muslim terrorists with ties to Iran, AND the device is proven to have originated there.

Under this scenario, who would approve of returning the favor on Tehran or another Iranian city? I am asking this under the context of MAD being discussed in this thread as a very useful deterrent. But for MAD to work, you have to return the favor, right?

Depends on what's going on, but the conventional forces of the United States are so enormously powerful that I'm not sure if we would nuke them back or not. (we almost don't have to) As I said in my other post though, I am certain that the leadership of Iran would be dead, in jail, or in hiding in short order no matter what costs the US incurred in doing it.

 

[Zebo]

Stupid policy. If I know my neighbor is likely to blow my head off it's unlikely i'll break in his house. Same goes for intercontinental shotguns.

We even call one of our nukes a "peace keeper" and I totally agree with this terminology. Nukes for peace.

 

[Zebo]

well because the countries who already have nukes will not use them unless they are attacked first. (at least i hope so)

NK and Iran or any other nutjob to aquire nukes scares the living shit out of countries because those nutjobs are unstable enough to use them as a first strike weapon.

Oh you make a cartoon about the prophet we nuke you!

People are people. They are no more nutty than you and certainly don't want to all die.

 

[Gintaras]

Might makes right

So were Napoleon, A.Hitler.
If you can NOT learn from mistakes made by others - you're stupid.

 

[Whiskey16]

Think about it, the US invented nukes back when vacuum tubes were high tech.

The state and people of the USA did not accomplish this alone. Foreign scientists plus prime state research involvement by Britain and Canada contributed and sped up the success.

Multiple states in thus world are quite capable of developing nuclear weapons - many choose not to and a couple have completely removed them from their inventory.

Since the 1960's the prime motivation for nuclear arms was that of a deterrent against foreign aggression. This is the only strategic reason for Iranian efforts. After witnessing how state such as the USA feel they may act upon a militarily neutered state such as Iraq, Iranian security may be increased with the known presence of nuclear weapons.

Those who so easily declare Iran to be irrationally insane are inept upon recognising history and international trends of Iran since the revolution. Who have they invaded? A reactionary war against, Iraq... Limited support for proxy insurgencies abroad of a sort that are child's play in comparison the insanely destabilising aggressive warfare of the USA upon Iraq.

Nuclear armed Iran? A rational reaction to the insane foreign policy ineptitude of the USA.

 

[Gintaras]

Dear Leader allowed 10% of his citizens to starve to death while creating his nukes.

MAD does assume the nation's leaders care about the survival of their citizens and not just themselves.

What country are you talking about? In US, it's not 10%, but more, not starved to death yet, but under poverty, while Pentagon is sending bills to AMERICANS: $1,000 for a bottle of Coca Cola, $300 - for a gallon of oil...
It's all about democracy, freedom...

BTW:

"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"

 

[Karl Agathon]

What country are you talking about? In US, it's not 10%, but more, not starved to death yet, but under poverty, while Pentagon is sending bills to AMERICANS: $1,000 for a bottle of Coca Cola, $300 - for a gallon of oil...
It's all about democracy, freedom...

BTW:

"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"

North Korea treats its people great heh?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I sincerely, sincerely doubt that. If a city of ours gets nuked, people will want revenge and they will take it on the most likely culprit, and nuclear forensics works pretty well. We might not nuke them back, but I would bet every dime that I own that if Iran were linked to a nuclear attack on the United States that in a matter of months the leadership in Iran would be dead, in jail, or in hiding.

For the life of me I cannot envision a single rational use of nuclear weapons by Iran unless the survival of the regime was at stake. The idea that they are going to just start nuking people is silliness in my opinion.

I can guarantee you that if the worst happened there would be people here who would question the authenticity of the evidence saying that it was done to frame Iran. This is a direct consequence of how GWB and his staff assured us in no uncertain terms that Saddam was a definite threat. Nevertheless I'm not saying an attack is likely. As far as rationality goes I'll remind you that at least one politician has been removed for the illegal use of witchcraft. My main concern is how this would change the dynamics of power in the region. You recall that at one point Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons but it was not for terrorist purposes. It provides protection from retribution for committing acts which were not practical without them and allows a power to be projected that could not happen otherwise. like a huge standing army on a border need not be used to have an impact.

 

[Rebel44]

I take it you've never heard of nuclear forensics. There is actually an entire field based around doing forensic testing on 'vaporized evidence' for the express purpose of tracing the bomb back to its origin, and we can most certainly do that. Way to deny it? Highly unlikely. So really, the idea that Iran has the potential to nuke the US while remaining undetected is a fantasy, or at a minimum highly improbable. (certainly improbable enough to make it a horrible bet for them to make)

For a primer on the field, read this: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf The main challenges in nuclear forensics are returning timely results, not so much a problem with eventually figuring out where it came from. (time being important because naturally there will be great political pressure to react quickly after a nuclear attack)

We should absolutely endeavor to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people such as Iran, but we should do this for real reasons, not made up ones. Iran having a nuclear weapon decisively alters the balance of power in the Middle East, and not in our favor. That's why we should stop them, not because they are going to go insane and try to nuke Boston.

This is mostly relevant when plutonium based nuke goes off. Its not so usefull in order to find out who is responsible for Uranium235 based bomb.