American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Picairn]

No we wouldn't be. No one is suddenly going to blow up New York, DC or Chicago because we got rid of our nukes.

Actually yes. If we ever got into a war with China and Russia in the future, the threat of nuclear attacks would render us vulnerable to defeat.

[Shrillland]

On your countries’ graves.

Utter rubbish.

No, it isn't. The Soviets already perfected this strategy in the 70s, they knew that if we had no defensive nukes, they could force a surrender of the nation without having to fire a single shot more than was needed to destroy our first-strike capability. All they would have to do is threaten us and lob one or two counter-infrastructure or counter-military missiles with MIRVs dropped on a few bases, and we'd have to collapse like a marshmallow coming out of the microwave. Counter-population weapons wouldn't have to be considered.

[Thermodolia]

Our ABMs are of dubious value even against the North Koreans lol the Russians have thousands of missiles all across Siberia and under the ice sheet on subs their deterrent is not in any danger of being neutralized

Putin’s geopolitical fears about NATO and the west are one thing, but it’s another to say NATO is actually capable of or interested in neutralizing the Russian military in one fell swoop. They’ll say whatever they want to justify Poseidon and Avangard and the like, the reality is it’s just weapons development following its logical course, not that there’s any pressing need for new ways to vaporize each other en masse.

200Mt is the sticker value from Moscow, anyways, in reality it’d likely be lower (though still terrifyingly huge).

Anyways, yeah, it’s a nightmarish and stupid weapon. The only purpose seems to be to indiscriminately wreck coastal metro areas.

all nuclear weapon research should stop and every nuclear weapon dismantled and the nuclear football destroyed.

This is an extremely fucking stupid take

[Thermodolia]

I wasn't aware that there was a developing famine in northern Ethiopia, but hopefully it can be headed off. That area has gone through enough trouble lately and does not need any more.


Unfortunately, it is probably too late to close that particular Pandora's Box. Nobody is willing to do it because nobody else will, and anyone who does not has an advantage over the others who have that they'd definitely use as a threat. It's basically like a bunch of branches all balanced on each other, disturbing it would disrupt the balance.

No nukes would almost certainly be preferable, though. I'm just not sure how it would be accomplished.

If was in charge id order the dismantling of all nuclear weapons in the US and the nuclear football destroyed.

And you’d end up being removed from office either by the military, Congress, or by your cabinet for being freaking insane

[Alcala-Cordel]

No country would be dumb enough to launch nuclear weapons. If we did it others would as well.

If we dismantle our nuclear arsenal then we're fucked.

Not really, but if the US is hated enough for its crimes that you'd think that's the case it's very telling about the United States as an entity.

[Thermodolia]

“Nuclear weapons represent the ultimate defense of the nation, a deterrent against any and all potential adversaries. Combined with diplomacy and conventional military capabilities, nuclear weapons have helped to avoid a large-scale conflict between leading world powers for over fifty years.“

• https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm


“ If U.S. nuclear forces are not properly maintained and modernized, they will lose their ability to effectively deter potential adversaries.”

• https://www.heritage.org/missile-defens ... ar-weapons


Nuclear disarmament is a utopian fantasy. Once the nuclear genie was let out of his bottle back in the day there’s no putting him back in. Ever.

Because no one has the will to do it. No country is suddenly going to say lets nuke Chicago, DC or New York because America got rid of all its nuclear weapons.

If I was in charge id break everything in the nuclear football and refuse to ever get nuclear codes.

Cool you just violated your constitutional duty to protect and defend the US.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I wasn't aware that there was a developing famine in northern Ethiopia, but hopefully it can be headed off. That area has gone through enough trouble lately and does not need any more.


Unfortunately, it is probably too late to close that particular Pandora's Box. Nobody is willing to do it because nobody else will, and anyone who does not has an advantage over the others who have that they'd definitely use as a threat. It's basically like a bunch of branches all balanced on each other, disturbing it would disrupt the balance.

No nukes would almost certainly be preferable, though. I'm just not sure how it would be accomplished.

If was in charge id order the dismantling of all nuclear weapons in the US and the nuclear football destroyed.

Even you're too radical to get elected.

Cool you just violated your constitutional duty to protect and defend the US.

Not really but it sounds cool when you say it like that

[Thermodolia]

If we dismantle our nuclear arsenal then we're fucked.

Not really, but if the US is hated enough for its crimes that you'd think that's the case it's very telling about the United States as an entity.

This has nothing to do with any alleged crimes and everything to do with the fact that if we get rid of our nukes we are open to attack by China or Russia if we ever go to war with either

[Thermodolia]

If was in charge id order the dismantling of all nuclear weapons in the US and the nuclear football destroyed.

Even you're too radical to get elected.

Cool you just violated your constitutional duty to protect and defend the US.

Not really but it sounds cool when you say it like that

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

[Alcala-Cordel]

Not really, but if the US is hated enough for its crimes that you'd think that's the case it's very telling about the United States as an entity.

This has nothing to do with any alleged crimes and everything to do with the fact that if we get rid of our nukes we are open to attack by China or Russia if we ever go to war with either

With our bloated military? The United States might be a house of cards, but invasion's not its vulnerability.

[Zurkir]

If we dismantle our nuclear arsenal then we're fucked.

Not really, but if the US is hated enough for its crimes that you'd think that's the case it's very telling about the United States as an entity.

Yes, we would be.

Any major power with major national rivals (who were nuclear able themselves) that disarmed itself in such a fashion would be committing suicide. Anyone who has any understanding of the concept of global/national relations and military and political tactics would understand the necessity for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It’s a common understanding that merely the existence of nuclear weapons has curtailed a third global conflict. Nuclear deterrence kept the Cold War from turning into a scorching hot one.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Even you're too radical to get elected.

Not really but it sounds cool when you say it like that

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

[Zurkir]

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

Better to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent in themselves as a foreign power wouldn’t want to risk nuking the US for fear of retaliation.

[Thermodolia]

This has nothing to do with any alleged crimes and everything to do with the fact that if we get rid of our nukes we are open to attack by China or Russia if we ever go to war with either

With our bloated military? The United States might be a house of cards, but invasion's not its vulnerability.

I don’t think you understand anything thats being said here.

What we are talking about is that if the US removes all of its nukes it will be open to bullying by Russia and China. And if we go to war with China, which is almost a near certainty at this point, China could easily force us to back off with the threat of NYC getting glassed.

With no nukes we can’t counter it and nor could we say you do that and it’s game over for humanity because we wouldn’t have nukes.

That’s what we are talking about. You clearly didn’t understand that

[Alcala-Cordel]

Not really, but if the US is hated enough for its crimes that you'd think that's the case it's very telling about the United States as an entity.

Yes, we would be.

Any major power with major national rivals (who were nuclear able themselves) that disarmed itself in such a fashion would be committing suicide. Anyone who has any understanding of the concept of global/national relations and military and political tactics would understand the necessity for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It’s a common understanding that merely the existence of nuclear weapons has curtailed a third global conflict. Nuclear deterrence kept the Cold War from turning into a scorching hot one.

The Cold War is over, and the world's a much different place. Modern technology makes traditional war with another superpower impossible, replacing it mostly with a system of targeted strikes, both physical and technologically, to the opponent. It's a new century, and in this new century the rules are different.

[Rusozak]

Even you're too radical to get elected.

Not really but it sounds cool when you say it like that

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

In the case of global thermonuclear war, retaliation isn't protecting, it's avenging. Protecting would be making sure those enemy nukes never hit. Of course millions maybe even billions of people who had nothing to do with the situation would die in the avenging but that's nuclear war for you. It just sucks all around.

[San Lumen]

Because no one has the will to do it. No country is suddenly going to say lets nuke Chicago, DC or New York because America got rid of all its nuclear weapons.

If I was in charge id break everything in the nuclear football and refuse to ever get nuclear codes.

Cool you just violated your constitutional duty to protect and defend the US.

How?

[Thermodolia]

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

Lives where already condemned the minute that nation launched its own nukes. It doesn’t matter.

And the planet would be fine. The radiation wouldn’t actually last that long, the idea that it would last for centuries and the idea that it would lead to nuclear winter is sci-fi nonsense

[Alcala-Cordel]

With our bloated military? The United States might be a house of cards, but invasion's not its vulnerability.

I don’t think you understand anything thats being said here.

What we are talking about is that if the US removes all of its nukes it will be open to bullying by Russia and China. And if we go to war with China, which is almost a near certainty at this point, China could easily force us to back off with the threat of NYC getting glassed.

With no nukes we can’t counter it and nor could we say you do that and it’s game over for humanity because we wouldn’t have nukes.

That’s what we are talking about. You clearly didn’t understand that

China might be terrible, but they're not gonna blow up a foreign city. That would be bad for business. Besides that, we are still more than capable of retaliation without nuclear weapons.

[Shrillland]

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

In the case of global thermonuclear war, retaliation isn't protecting, it's avenging. Protecting would be making sure those enemy nukes never hit. Of course millions maybe even billions of people who had nothing to do with the situation would die in the avenging but that's nuclear war for you. It just sucks all around.

Depends what you mean by protecting. In a nuclear war, your first target isn't cities, infrastructure, or most military installations, it's your enemy's nuclear capability. You want to send your strongest nukes out targeted at known locations of ICBM silos and SLBM-capable submarines since you want to destroy at least a sizable part of their counter-infrastructure and counter-population capability. If you can do that, and pray that your enemy doesn't have a launch-on-verification-of-warning doctrine, you can make them surrender while keeping most industry, agriculture, and people alive.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

Lives where already condemned the minute that nation launched its own nukes. It doesn’t matter.

And the planet would be fine. The radiation wouldn’t actually last that long, the idea that it would last for centuries and the idea that it would lead to nuclear winter is sci-fi nonsense

I'm not saying we'd get be wiped from the planet or plunged into Mad Max, but the environmental impact would still be devastating. Ecosystems are far more connected than you might think.

Besides that, the less lives taken the better.

[Thermodolia]

Yes, we would be.

Any major power with major national rivals (who were nuclear able themselves) that disarmed itself in such a fashion would be committing suicide. Anyone who has any understanding of the concept of global/national relations and military and political tactics would understand the necessity for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It’s a common understanding that merely the existence of nuclear weapons has curtailed a third global conflict. Nuclear deterrence kept the Cold War from turning into a scorching hot one.

The Cold War is over, and the world's a much different place. Modern technology makes traditional war with another superpower impossible, replacing it mostly with a system of targeted strikes, both physical and technologically, to the opponent. It's a new century, and in this new century the rules are different.

The Cold War isn’t over it’s just been on pause. And no the reason why Russia and the West and the US and China haven’t gone to war isn’t because of Modern tech but because of nukes and the fear that if the US or China, or Russia or France was on its last legs they’d nuke the opposition rather than surrender

[Zurkir]

Yes, we would be.

Any major power with major national rivals (who were nuclear able themselves) that disarmed itself in such a fashion would be committing suicide. Anyone who has any understanding of the concept of global/national relations and military and political tactics would understand the necessity for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It’s a common understanding that merely the existence of nuclear weapons has curtailed a third global conflict. Nuclear deterrence kept the Cold War from turning into a scorching hot one.

The Cold War is over, and the world's a much different place. Modern technology makes traditional war with another superpower impossible, replacing it mostly with a system of targeted strikes, both physical and technologically, to the opponent. It's a new century, and in this new century the rules are different.

Not as different a place as you’ve been indoctrinated to think it is. China, Russia, Iran, and NK for example are nuclear capable and all of these nations are rival nations/enemies of ours. China and Russia are both very aggressive in particular and are competing for dominant positions. China itself has already been marked as very possibly being at war with the US in the coming future. As I said, they are nuclear capable and the US disarming itself and rattling swords with them inevitably (such is the world) is suicide.

[Thermodolia]

I don’t think you understand anything thats being said here.

What we are talking about is that if the US removes all of its nukes it will be open to bullying by Russia and China. And if we go to war with China, which is almost a near certainty at this point, China could easily force us to back off with the threat of NYC getting glassed.

With no nukes we can’t counter it and nor could we say you do that and it’s game over for humanity because we wouldn’t have nukes.

That’s what we are talking about. You clearly didn’t understand that

China might be terrible, but they're not gonna blow up a foreign city. That would be bad for business. Besides that, we are still more than capable of retaliation without nuclear weapons.

If we had no nuclear weapons we’d have to take them for their word. That’s the thing no nukes leaves you open to being pushed around

[Thermodolia]

The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

In the case of global thermonuclear war, retaliation isn't protecting, it's avenging. Protecting would be making sure those enemy nukes never hit. Of course millions maybe even billions of people who had nothing to do with the situation would die in the avenging but that's nuclear war for you. It just sucks all around.

Well yes, but even then anti-Missile technology is only so good. There’s always going to be a few nukes that get through