US Navy to deal with NRO's screwup by destroying it.

[Medic]

... That's exactly what I said, that the Russian's were reacting (in some righteous indignation) to OUR move to put IRBM's on THEIR doorstep.

My point was, 1) we already maintained from CONUS a strategic superiority (we could definitely do WITHOUT those IRBM's; however they would probably as Stuart pointed out, prevent the USSR from "decoupling" us from Europe) and 2) it was stupid of them to risk nuclear war by basing close to us, IRBM's. Say what you will of fairness but if you're in a position of weakness but willing to do JUST ENOUGH to actually provoke a full-scale nuclear war, I can't look kindly upon that. American IRBM's were just that much more, (they only added to B-52's and B-47's we had in great numbers) but Soviet IRBM's immediately escalated the situation.

And why was that? Because only the U.S. has a "right" to be secure? I believe not, the reason is because instead of a threat to CONUS developing by degrees, over years, as a result of Soviet advances in technology and production in the fields of ballistic missiles, supersonic bombers or nuclear-armed submarines, a threat developed to CONUS quickly and hopefully for the Soviet's clandestinely and worse than mere bombers, it was missiles, whose reaction time could be measured in minutes and simply radicalizes options for everyone, in the event a cold war goes hot.

I say again, I can't look kindly upon this.

[Medic]

Yeah, that's the exact sort of tripe I was thinking I'd hear.

Don't like someone's hegemony? Hate it? Loathe it?

Don't do anything against it, and everything will be OKAY!!! Laughing See how simple - kowtow to the United States, allow them do whatever they want to do, and there will be no conflict!! Laughing

Gee, thanks. You've exactly proven my point.

Believe it or not, the reasoning I'm arguing from is "we will build our toys, and they will build theirs" and that more or less the superiority or inferiority of one side or another's system, or allegiances or willpower determines the victor. This system works if it's relatively open and gradualistic. The USSR was at risk of nuclear attack the nebulous moment the USSR and USA ceased being allies after WWII and the Cold War started and starting from there, it only got worse.

As far as who had a greater right to feel so justified in their indignation how could it not be the U.S.? IRBMs in Turkey are not to any great degree any worse than Polaris SLBMs and Khrushchev had the great luxury of complaining about it loudly. We had no luxury of voicing outrage at a missile deployment in Cuba, we had to find out courtesy a high-flying U-2! If it was apples and apples I could feel more sympathy for the Soviet's position at the time but it's not that. Khrushchev should have pursued a dialogue with the U.S. stronger than he did and not resort to clandestine actions to address the strategic balance. What did he THINK was going to happen? If it was such a great decision why didn't Soviet politicians keep him in power after the crisis?

He fucked up and he blinked.

[Broomstick]

Oh boo fucking hoo, let's look at this relative to GDP

No, let's not: there's no nation which could militarily pose any threat to the US whatsoever. Yet the US continues spending as if there still is.

So we want to stay on top. Is there any nation that, once top dog, doesn't try to stay there?

War is an extension of politics. Primacy means there's a nation which can cower anyone into submission, which no one should ever oppose, and which can technically do anything it wants, the only thing stopping it would be it's own moral inhibitors (yeah, that worked real well with the advanced, industrial and educated nation of Germany). Fuck that and fuck the Top Dogs.

If Germany didn't like getting bombed to shit... well, they started the war and brought it on themselves. What, Europe was supposed to roll over and lie down, let the Germans murder millions of people, etc., etc.? That gets back to don't start a shooting war.

On top of that, the conquest of Germany was NOT solely an American effort, or didn't you notice the British involvement? That could NOT have been done without Great Britain.

A lot of US military spending is on hardware advances, and things like GPS which, by the way, the use of is free to the rest of the world

That's not the only such system - many other militaries have or plan to have dual-use systems (COMPASS, GALILEO, GLONASS).

Plan to have such systems means they don't have them yet. The plans for Galileo includes charging a yearly fee, to make the users pay for the system. GPS is up and running now and is funded entirely by the US military so there is no charge to any user anywhere in the world

By all means - please, lets have other countries come up with comparable or even better systems. That would be fantastic.

Meanwhile, we weren't turning former enemies and neighbors into vassal states.

Looks at Latin America *cough* Yeah. You didn't. You just held your share of sock nations.

Oh, yeah, we've got control of, say, Venezuela and Argentina and Cuba

On the upside, we don't enslave our conquered enemies and we don't systematically wipe them out.

You mean you're better than the Nazis? Thanks, that's a real advancement.

No, better than a lot of people, not just the Nazis. The Nazis didn't invent slavery or genocide, they just modernized it. One reason people were somewhat willing to tolerate Ancient Rome was that, aside from taxes and required veneration of Ceaser they didn't have the old practice of killing all the men, raping all the women, and enslaving whoever was left alive when they conquered people. Or for a more modern example look at any number of African shitholes where half the population decides to murder the other half with machetes, or go around lopping the hands off people to deliberately make thousands of cripples.

Not to mention that you let others do that "wipe them out" thing for you - you're too advanced now to get your hands in something dirty, isn't it.

Oh, we'll get our hands dirty if we have to - but only if we have to. Really, that's on the level of Afghanis bitching because we bombed them from the air instead of meeting them face to face. Too fucking bad. If we're in a military conflict we'll use whatever advantages we have.

As far as getting others to do our dirty work - who was funding the North Koreans and the North Vietminese? You accuse the US of doing exactly what the USSR was doing.

That's hardly the action of a controlling puppeteer state such as you imagine the US to be.

The key point is that if a former ally decides to oppose you (and he can do so with good reasons of his own) he's fucked ten times over. So what you're advocating is a world where the US can in fact attack anyone and do anything. But no one should have the ability, and no one can attack the US. No one can oppose it. No one can do anything beyond toying the US party line.

You know, a century ago the US was a pissant country that Europe made fun of for being backward. Really, just another former colony. Ha-ha-ha look at the country bumpkins. How come we achieved such an advantage in that time period? Why didn't Russia and the Soviets? After all, they have just as many, if not more, natural resources than the US. They had even more people. In 1908 Germany was far more technically and scientifically advanced than the US. Great Britain still had an Empire. What the fuck happened to everyone?

Hint: two major wars will really fuck up your infrastructure.

So... other people don't like it they can develop a robust economy and invest in military development. There is no reason that the European Union couldn't match the US militarily, they just don't want to spend the money and effort on it. You state the USSR wasn't the military equal of the US but it was sufficient that the US spent a lot of time and effort to avoid getting into direct conflict with it. Ditto for China, because numbers do count, even these days.

As a matter of fact, with the US economy currently in the shitter this would be a great opportunity for others to pull ahead. We certainly didn't stop either North Korea or Pakistan from getting the atomic bomb, did we?

You don't like the fact the US has real economic power - well, you know, you don't have to deal with us, trade with us, or associate with us. You can sell your stuff to someone else. It wasn't that long ago that the US and France had some major differences of opinion but oddly, no one got shot.

Personally, I'd rather have a balance of power, with the world's nations dealing with each other as equals, but that seldom if ever occurs. I'm not going to bitch because my country has been top dog for awhile. We spent quite awhile as a backwater, basically our first century. There was nothing inevitable about our rise to power.

The Pax America is just the same bullcrap as the Roman and British Empires, only in a new, softer paperfold. I'll be the first to laugh when that idiotic order of things falls apart.

Yeah - so what? And only far-right nutjobs have any illusion we'll be top dog forever.

OK, so the US goes down the shitter - what then? Who's next? Europe? China? I don't think Russia's in position to step into the top slot. Eliminate the US you won't suddenly have paradise and a meeting of equals. As I said, the US is not a nation of saints and we certainly have flaws, but we aren't the worst possible top dog.

[K. A. Pital]

As far as who had a greater right to feel so justified in their indignation how could it not be the U.S.?

Why do you choose to stir this into someting off-point over and over?

Let me put it plain and simple:

You didn't HAVE to base the missiles so close to a country that could wipe you out and as history showed.

The US will be the nation that can wipe out anyone. In the past it WAS the only nation that could wipe out anyone.

And this is a very uncomfortable feeling. It's fucking uncomfortable, and that's why the Carribean Crisis happened - because another state wanted some measures of retaliation against the US, to destroy the situation where one side is hopelessly outmatched without a chance of incurring loss to the opponent.

So if you want a new Carribean Crisis when someone will try to challenge the hegemon, or a new nuclear bombing - the second in world history - you may follow the idea to it's logical extent - 1945-1962 culminated in the Carribean Crisis.

2002-200x can culminate in something similar - except there's no guarantee whatsoever that the new standoff will end without losses, as opposed to one side nuking the other, or both incurring losses due to the other's side unconventional weaponry or new offensive devices.

That's the problem. When everyone can kill everyone, that's simple- you kill, you get killed. When the situation is changed, there will be attempts to restore a parity or at least gain some ability to retaliate.

If Germany didn't like getting bombed to shit...

You really don't understand? Germany is an analogue of the US. It was educated. Industrialized. European. Militarily powerful. And it decisively wiped out it's opponents with brutal warfare.

The US is educated. Industrialized. Militarily powerful. An offshoot of European culture (more or less, whether you want to admit or not).

What stops the US from killing people in the future? Counting on moral inhibitors is just stupid.

Plan to have such systems means they don't have them yet.

Broomstick, GLONASS is operational. I can go out to a GPS store and buy that shit.

Oh, yeah, we've got control of, say, Venezuela and Argentina and Cuba

You're picking the states the US didn't occupy, or have sock dictators in, as opposed to the ones in which it did? Way to go. How about

Or for a more modern example look at any number of African shitholes where half the population decides to murder the other half with machetes

Okay, let me get this straight - you're saying the US should get nuclear supremacy as a moral argument, because the US is more moral than stone-age nations? I still don't understand what this argument should do.

The US is the worst First World nation, in my view, and there are lots of indicators which show that. Why the fuck should it get to be the Top Dog? Just because it's so great? "America-fuck yeah"?

Sorry, but so far I only see "US is better than brutal genocidal shitholes - so, it's only natural the US should have nuclear supremacy over everyone else"

I'm not going to bitch because my country has been top dog for awhile.

Oh, how generous! Look, the US didn't have nuclear supremacy since the 70s. Did not. No one had.

You want to say there are ways for other nations to develop measures to wipe the US off the map and that they should go for it instead of bitching?

Hey, guess what, that's what I said - other nations should hinder every US effort, everywhere, and develop their own offensive systems which are capable of killing the US in a retaliation strike. That's ALL i'm for. So yeah, no bitching - just jam our teeth and develop a weapon that could kill the US.

[Kane Starkiller]

Why do you choose to stir this into someting off-point over and over?

Interesting comment seeing as how every single thread about US military technology always spirals off into "AMERICA IS EVIL!!!!".
Obviously USA nuclear primacy is bad for Russia. It doesn't really change anything for the rest of the world since US could already nuke the world because Russia would only retaliate if it itself was attacked.
But I don't see what Russia can do to slow down the deployment of the various elements of the US missile shields. Take the naval component for example. The 70 AEGIS ships are already operational all having 80 VLS cells. All they need now is for those SM-3's to start rolling out of the factory.
Secondly how can "sleeper cells" within US serve as deterrent? I mean USA must be made aware that there are sleeper cells with nukes on it's territory if it's to be deterred by it.

[Broomstick]

And this is a very uncomfortable feeling. It's fucking uncomfortable

No one is denying that.

So if you want a new Carribean Crisis when someone will try to challenge the hegemon, or a new nuclear bombing - the second in world history - you may follow the idea to it's logical extent - 1945-1962 culminated in the Carribean Crisis.

2002-200x can culminate in something similar - except there's no guarantee whatsoever that the new standoff will end without losses, as opposed to one side nuking the other, or both incurring losses due to the other's side unconventional weaponry or new offensive devices.

And there's no guarantee that the "second nuclear bombing" would involve the US at all - Pakistan vs. India would be a prime example of where two parties that don't like each other both have the bomb. If some of the more radical nutcase terrorists running around got ahold of a nuke who knows where they might detonate it? Sure, the US is tempting target but it may not be the easiest or the first on the list of a particular organization.

That's the problem. When everyone can kill everyone, that's simple- you kill, you get killed. When the situation is changed, there will be attempts to restore a parity or at least gain some ability to retaliate.

Uh, yeah - that's why other countries have atomic weaponry, too, right? But the US didn't summarily turn such countries into parking lots to preserve nuclear exclusivity or superiority, did they?

If Germany didn't like getting bombed to shit...

You really don't understand? Germany is an analogue of the US. It was educated. Industrialized. European. Militarily powerful. And it decisively wiped out it's opponents with brutal warfare.

The US is educated. Industrialized. Militarily powerful. An offshoot of European culture (more or less, whether you want to admit or not).

Right, and Germany lost the war in the end because, however powerful they might have been one-on-one they couldn't take on a bunch of nations banding together.

Likewise, although the US is pretty fucking powerful it can't take on the entire rest of the world, and the cost of taking on, say, a united Europe including Russia is also probably prohibitive.

What stops the US from killing people in the future? Counting on moral inhibitors is just stupid.

The fact that if we piss off enough people we'll be in the same boat Germany and Japan were in in 1944. We wouldn't be taking one one country at a time, we'd be facing a massive coalition, including some members that are normally enemies (analogous to the US and USSR cooperating to defeat Germany)

Okay, let me get this straight - you're saying the US should get nuclear supremacy as a moral argument, because the US is more moral than stone-age nations? I still don't understand what this argument should do.

It's NOT an argument that the US "should" have nuclear supremacy, it's an argument that the US is not the worst of all possible evils. Or would you have preferred, say, Imperial Japan getting the bomb first and now controlling all of Asia? Do you think that would be better? Would you prefer somebody else as hegemon? Do you think that nation would be more or less benevolent than the US?

The US is the worst First World nation, in my view, and there are lots of indicators which show that. Why the fuck should it get to be the Top Dog? Just because it's so great? "America-fuck yeah"?

No, there's no "should" be top dog - the US is top dog, for the present time. It hasn't always been, and it won't always be in that position. The US got to be top dog by investing in the military and having an economic system that could support that investment. The fact that two world wars devastated the Europeans and set them back did give some advantage, but the choice to invest in the military had to be made. If anyone else wishes to do the same they can.

Sorry, but so far I only see "US is better than brutal genocidal shitholes - so, it's only natural the US should have nuclear supremacy over everyone else"

I'm not arguing there is anything "natural" or predestined about it - the US is not entitled to such superiority, but neither was it bestowed by a magical sky pixie. The choice was made to invest in the infrastructure and expertise to build up the military, and the US was successful in doing so. Again, what is stopping any other country or union/alliance/coalition of countries from likewise doing the same?

I'm not going to bitch because my country has been top dog for awhile.

Oh, how generous! Look, the US didn't have nuclear supremacy since the 70s. Did not. No one had.

Our "top dog" status is not based solely on our nukes - little things like being able to strike anywhere in the world with conventional bombs in a very short time period also has an effect.

You want to say there are ways for other nations to develop measures to wipe the US off the map and that they should go for it instead of bitching?

Yeah, I'm saying if you're bitching someone else has better military capabilities you should quit bitching on work on developing your OWN capabilities... or else learn to live with the situation until Mr. Top Dog isn't such any longer.

Hey, guess what, that's what I said - other nations should hinder every US effort, everywhere, and develop their own offensive systems which are capable of killing the US in a retaliation strike.

Um, yeah - like I said, what's stopping you, really?

That's ALL i'm for. So yeah, no bitching - just jam our teeth and develop a weapon that could kill the US.

:::kiss kiss::: We love you, too.

[CJvR]

Secondly how can "sleeper cells" within US serve as deterrent? I mean USA must be made aware that there are sleeper cells with nukes on it's territory if it's to be deterred by it.

The entire point of having a doomsday device is lost if you don't tell other you have it...

[K. A. Pital]

The fact that if we piss off enough people we'll be in the same boat Germany and Japan were in in 1944.

I just want to make my point perfectly clear.

The "fact" that Germany got brutally beaten in WWI didn't spare it from starting WWII. The "fact" that the US will be in the same boat may very well not deter the leadership.

And I'm not saying there should be another country with nuclear supremacy. No!

There should be no one with supremacy. Each major nuclear nation should have a park of weapons which can destroy it's possible opponent (in our case, the US, Russia and China), all of them in case of a conflict.

Say, if major nuclear countries each build a huge strategic airforce stocked with ATG nuclear missiles, that's a situation where everyone can kill everyone again - despite the ABM.

[Tanasinn]

I don't really understand the argument here. Any nation with the coin and common sense should always strive to be untouchable. I can't blame other nations for trying to impede that, but to expect "It's not fair!" to deter someone is just silly.

[Kane Starkiller]

There should be no one with supremacy. Each major nuclear nation should have a park of weapons which can destroy it's possible opponent (in our case, the US, Russia and China), all of them in case of a conflict.

The problem here I believe is your phrasing. Why shouldn't USA have supremacy? Your answer is invariably "because then US can bomb my country". But that doesn't really concern me does it? So if you are saying "I don't want USA to be able to bomb Russia" then that's fine. But if you are saying that USA "shouldn't" have nuclear primacy as some kind of universal truth then you have to back that up with more argumentation than "it's bad for Russia".

[Broomstick]

[The "fact" that Germany got brutally beaten in WWI didn't spare it from starting WWII. The "fact" that the US will be in the same boat may very well not deter the leadership.

It won't guarantee prevention, but the folks in charge of the US military are not a bunch of pimply-faced permavirgins playing video games in mama's basement. They aren't stupid. The lessons of WWII are still within living memory and they certainly can have an impact. The leadership could just as well say "no.... we ain't doing that, we don't want to lose like that." Because, after all, if we did lose in a conflict like that we can't trust the victors in that case to be as benevolent as the Allies were - and as you point out, the Allies weren't exactly angels.

[K. A. Pital]

Your answer is invariably "because then US can bomb my country". But that doesn't really concern me does it?

Well, sure: "Why shouldn't Germany exterminate lower races? I'm not a lower race, so it doesn't concern me, does it?". Or "Why shouldn't the poor starve? I'm not poor, so it doesn't concern me, does it"? Way to go.

Note that I'm arguing against nuclear supremacy of any country, including my own.

The inevitable arms race and search for methods to achieve parity - that results in stuff like Carribean Crisis, because the nations which can't retaliate feel bad about it (wouldn't you?) and try to change that. That's the problem. Blame it on me as much as you want to. That wont' make the fact go away.

It won't guarantee prevention, but the folks in charge of the US military are not a bunch of pimply-faced permavirgins playing video games in mama's basement. They aren't stupid.

How stupid are they? Can you measure stupidity? Stupid strategic decisions are taken by the political leadership (Iraq), they only work out the details. Can you say that folks in charge of the U.S. political administration are not stupid - beacuse those are the ones who make strategic decisions, not the military on it's own. It seems they're either malevolent or stupid, neither variant being good for your point.

[Ritterin Sophia]

-Stas being a dumbass-

Why exactly do you assume the ABM system is for nuclear primacy? Do you think we're going to try and impede other nations attempts to develop ABM systems? Newsflash: We don't care if you or anyone else develops ABM's. In fact as Stuart attempted to tell you numerous times but you ignorantly ignored each time: WE WANT YOU TO BUILD ABM!

[Kane Starkiller]

Well, sure: "Why shouldn't Germany exterminate lower races? I'm not a lower race, so it doesn't concern me, does it?". Or "Why shouldn't the poor starve? I'm not poor, so it doesn't concern me, does it"? Way to go.

We are talking about US ability to bomb Russia not actual bombing. You know the way Russia has the ability to bomb Mongolia. That doesn't mean they will. And no it doesn't concern me any more you are concerned about Topol-M enhancing Russian ability to nuke Mongolia.

Note that I'm arguing against nuclear supremacy of any country, including my own.

Note that your country already has nuclear supremacy over all countries except US. Nuclear supremacy is not some universal term, it is a relation between two countries.

The inevitable arms race and search for methods to achieve parity - that results in stuff like Carribean Crisis,

You make it sound like arms race is some kind of natural law. It isn't. Russia chose to race with US. Brazil and India didn't and don't for example. Russian race with US is Russian not a world problem just like parity with US benefits Russia not the world.

because the nations which can't retaliate feel bad about it (wouldn't you?) and try to change that.

Wouldn't I? I live in Croatia, a country which would bankrupt itself if it tried to build half of an ICBM. Maybe my government should start crying to US and Russia to decrease their ICBM arsenal to say zero?

That's the problem. Blame it on me as much as you want to. That wont' make the fact go away.

I don't blame you. I'm just pointing out that this is a Russian problem not a world problem.

[K. A. Pital]

Why exactly do you assume the ABM system is for nuclear primacy?

Are you just too stupid to understand that if everyone has ABM, only ICBMs become obsolete, but not other means of delivery? And who has the largest aerial delivery force? Whos mainland is secure from possible enemy aerial attack? Oh, that's right. Nowhere did I say other countries will not build ABM, the bullshit strawman you're peddling.

Russian race with US is Russian not a world problem just like parity with US benefits Russia not the world.

Once again, that's the same logic as before - "that's sucktastic for someone else, so screw them". And no, I was speaking about nuclear powers, not the "entire world" - although in case of a major nuclear conflit the "entire world" would be fucked. All major nuclear powers, in the status-quo case, can kill each other or at least do major population slaughter as a retaliation. China, Russia, India, US... But then you give all 4 a working ABM system.

Now there's 3 nations which can't kill the US, and the US which can kill each of those three.

[Cecelia5578]

Are you just too stupid to understand that if everyone has ABM, only ICBMs become obsolete, but not other means of delivery?

And, as Stuart has pointed out many times, manned bombers can be recalled right up until the last moment, unline ICBMs, thus making them safer, at least if your goal is avoiding nuclear war.

[Kane Starkiller]

Once again, that's the same logic as before - "that's sucktastic for someone else, so screw them".

You make it sound as if this is some great disaster that will befall only Russian people so I'm heartless for not caring. In reality losing nuclear parity with USA merely puts you in the same boat as the rest of us. Obviously I'm not going to loose much sleep over that.

And no, I was speaking about nuclear powers, not the "entire world" - although in case of a major nuclear conflit the "entire world" would be fucked. All major nuclear powers, in the status-quo case, can kill each other or at least do major population slaughter as a retaliation. China, Russia, India, US... But then you give all 4 a working ABM system.

Now there's 3 nations which can't kill the US, and the US which can kill each of those three.

Which is excellent news for USA and terrible news for Russia. Again, if your argument is that current developments are bad for Russia I have no problem with that. But if you are saying that US actions are immoral or unethical then you need to provide some evidence that Russia has some kind of right to a nuclear parity with USA.

[K. A. Pital]

Which is excellent news for USA and terrible news for Russia.

And China and India too. Hell, for any other nation that could formerly have a nuclear deterrent.

As for moral rights to deterrent, I'm not making moral arguments, merely logical ones. It's uncomfortable when you can be decimated without retaliation; such situation is not safe, not balanced, and leads to "find a way to kill them" race wich, can either lead to a new deterrent, or a military crisis a-la CMC. Your pick? Are you sure disgruntled catching-up nations won't do anything reckless to shorten the nuclear gap and get means of retaliation?

Tell that to my hand. The problem is that there won't be a new balance - there would be a new imbalance.

Nuclear weapons after all aren't meant for non-nuclear countries, but for nuclear opponents; so are retaliation strikes.

And, as Stuart has pointed out many times, manned bombers can be recalled right up until the last moment, unline ICBMs, thus making them safer, at least if your goal is avoiding nuclear war.

Okay, look here idiot.

You have a gun and I do. We both point at each other - if one shoots, the other also dies. That's a strong incentive not to shoot, isn't it? However, both guns aren't really that safe and can fire from malfunction.

Now, new situation: you have a gun. Yeah, this new gun is a safer. Now, you point this gun at me but I can't do shit - both your and my old "guns" (ICBMs) no longer work. But the difference between us is that you can kill from the new gun, but I can't kill you with a new gun. There's no strong incentive not to shoot for you.

If you shoot, you kill another nation but you won't get your own one blown to smithereens, which is in my view the only reasonable and enough deterrent against a nuclear-capable enemy. No, I don't believe in goodwill and all that feelgood tripe.

[K. A. Pital]

Which is excellent news for USA and terrible news for Russia.

And China and India too. Hell, for any other nation that could formerly have a nuclear deterrent.

As for moral rights to deterrent, I'm not making moral arguments, merely logical ones. It's uncomfortable when you can be decimated without retaliation; such situation is not safe, not balanced, and leads to "find a way to kill them" race wich, can either lead to a new deterrent, or a military crisis a-la CMC. Your pick? Are you sure disgruntled catching-up nations won't do anything reckless to shorten the nuclear gap and get means of retaliation?

Tell that to my hand. The problem is that there won't be a new balance - there would be a new imbalance.

Nuclear weapons after all aren't meant for non-nuclear countries, but for nuclear opponents; so are retaliation strikes.

And, as Stuart has pointed out many times, manned bombers can be recalled right up until the last moment, unline ICBMs, thus making them safer, at least if your goal is avoiding nuclear war.

Okay, look here idiot.

You have a gun and I do. We both point at each other - if one shoots, the other also dies. That's a strong incentive not to shoot, isn't it? However, both guns aren't really that safe and can fire from malfunction.

Now, new situation: you have a gun. Yeah, this new gun is a safer. Now, you point this gun at me but I can't do shit - both your and my old "guns" (ICBMs) no longer work. But the difference between us is that you can kill from the new gun, but I can't kill you with a new gun. There's no strong incentive not to shoot for you.

If you shoot, you kill another nation but you won't get your own one blown to smithereens, which is in my view the only reasonable and enough deterrent against a nuclear-capable enemy. No, I don't believe in goodwill and all that feelgood tripe.

[Kane Starkiller]

And China and India too. Hell, for any other nation that could formerly have a nuclear deterrent.

As for moral rights to deterrent, I'm not making moral arguments, merely logical ones. It's uncomfortable when you can be decimated without retaliation; such situation is not safe, not balanced, and leads to "find a way to kill them" race wich, can either lead to a new deterrent, or a military crisis a-la CMC. Your pick? Are you sure disgruntled catching-up nations won't do anything reckless to shorten the nuclear gap and get means of retaliation?

Tell that to my hand. The problem is that there won't be a new balance - there would be a new imbalance.

Nuclear weapons after all aren't meant for non-nuclear countries, but for nuclear opponents; so are retaliation strikes.

I fully expect Russia trying to catch up. But not developing your military because your opponent might try to catch up doesn't strike me as a particularly strong incentive.
Secondly what kind of reckless operations other countries might undertake? Shortening your nuclear-gap is not as important as not loosing your cities to US nuclear retaliation. And if the countries are so crazy as to consider shortening the gap worth risking their cities that is only one more argument for an ABM.

[Medic]

*snip Stas's gun analgoy*

No, I don't believe in goodwill and all that feelgood tripe.

All the same, I don't believe without reasonable evidence that the United States enjoying a nuclear-retaliation-free condition ultimately results in our initiating nuclear war. Or even merely that we would be more willing to do so.

You refuse to appeal to 'goodwill' and 'feelgood tripe' and I refuse to appeal to worst-case-scenario fearmongering.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You refuse to appeal to 'goodwill' and 'feelgood tripe' and I refuse to appeal to worst-case-scenario fearmongering.

Isn't this "Worst case scenario fearmongering" practically played out by the current administration right now? What makes you think it won't again appear in the future? Communism was demonised once, what's the say some other idealogy wouldn't?

If there's one thing that has to be said, there's no such thing as altruism in politics. You are, as George W. Bush has put it more directly, "You are either with us, or against us", and it isn't exactly the first time that nonsense appeared in history not too long ago.

[Sidewinder]

Mr. Stas Bush, you seem to forget the that wars are started by POLITICIANS for POLITICAL REASONS. From what I understand of your position, you seem to think the US acquisition of ABM will allow it to threaten other nations without fear of retaliation. In fact, the US is motivated to threaten nations that are seen as a direct threat to its interests, e.g., the USSR during the Cold War and Cuba when the Soviets based nuclear missiles there. The US is NOT threatening Russia now because Russia is NOT seen as a major threat to its interests. The US is NOT threatening India for the same reasons, just as the Indians don't feel threatened by the US, and have no reason to aim nuclear missiles at the US.

What will make the US consider Russia a threat is the Russian government's POLITICAL POSTURE, e.g., the Russian president speaking publicly that the US must be destroyed and ordering Russian soldiers and marines to prepare to conquer Alaska. Russia having nuclear parity or even supremacy will NOT make the US feel threatened UNLESS the Russian government's posture suggests Russia intends to threaten US interests. After all, you don't see American right-wingers screaming about France and Britain's nuclear arsenal.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Isn't this "Worst case scenario fearmongering" practically played out by the current administration right now? What makes you think it won't again appear in the future? Communism was demonised once, what's the say some other idealogy wouldn't?

Communism was demonised once, and nothing says that kind of demonisation won't return. But you forgot one thing: we had the ability to destroy a future rival for our hegemonic position without suffering any kind of retaliation ourselves, but we didn't, even when most people only thought of nuclear devices as little more than really big bombs. Why didn't we do it? Because it was too much of a hassle. Since that time the public opinion on using nuclear weapons has worsened, and there's much less of a 'Nuke Them' attitude.

Regardless, thank you Stas, for turning this debate into one big negative proof fallacy.

[K. A. Pital]

People keep harping about the current political situation and how the US will not attack anyone with nukes "just because" (at least in it's current stance)

Hell, that's supposed to be some kind of "revelation"?

You know, most serious nuclear crisis situations unfold because there's a catch-up attempt against a gap in retaliation capabilities. Of course it won't just come out of the blue.

Since that time the public opinion on using nuclear weapons has worsened, and there's much less of a 'Nuke Them' attitude.

I can't believe someone is stupid enough to say that the current change of public opinion is a strong argument against the possibility of nuclear war in the future. That's downright pathetic - something so unstable as public opinion, which is reversed barely in the course of a few years, is used to make an argument about a permanent deterrent situation. Color me impressed. What if Russia goes all-out autocratic? Again the public opinion is most certainly back to "nukes are dandy", and what will you tell me then? Idiot.

Fallacy my ass. Using a minute change of mood as an argument that nuclear weapons are harmless, fuck yeah!

But you forgot one thing: we had the ability to destroy a future rival for our hegemonic position without suffering any kind of retaliation ourselves, but we didn't

Yada yada yada. "We didn't". Who says it would be a first strike out of the blue, idiot? The Carribean Crisis started by the territorial dislocation of nuclear arms as strike means. Who says this is impossible again? Bomber bases elsewhere in the world as means to kill? Risky sub patrols?

"Negative proof"? What's the proof other countries will nuke you if they can?