Fear of nuclear war

[Engleberg]

Whoa, you're a funny one.

Also, nuclear war ain't gonna happen. Benefits nobody, and most logical people want something that benefits them.

The destruction of a rival and the ability to secure a place in the new order of things you've inherently carved out through your actions.

Yes, but if your nation is destroyed from MAD or another system such as that - there will be difficulty in securing a place. Unless you survive in a bunker, and wait for the radiation to die down.

[Novus America]

Whoa, you're a funny one.

Also, nuclear war ain't gonna happen. Benefits nobody, and most logical people want something that benefits them.

The destruction of a rival and the ability to secure a place in the new order of things you've inherently carved out through your actions.

Unless you are a Hitler style genocidal maniac, this is simply not your goal. Rarely is the objective to totally destroy your rival through killing most of their people, let alone if they can kill a good number of your people in return. The US for example could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union in the 50s, and suffered much less damage in return. But mass killing for the sake of killing our rival was not our goal.

Or again the US or Israel could nuke Iran and thus eliminate a rival and they would be unable to respond. But again, killing Iranians just because we want them to die is simply not our goal.

Decision makers do in fact have morals or at the very least even if they are total sociopaths they still have to consider what the population of their country will tolerate.

The vast majority of people are not genocidal sociopaths.

[Svertopia]

Tell me. Should this Russian poll hack probe successfully work against Trump, and Hillary is considered a valid winner of the election after all this, her foreign policy will lead to WW3 over a no-fly zone over Syria or something like that. I don't know a whole lot of details, I just to know I'm safe from any attack threats.

And argue whatever you want about them being wrong. Just because most "experts" say something will/won't happen doesn't mean it's true.

I feel truly afraid, I wish I didn't have to deal with it. Why, God, why?

[Neuwland]

End Russia and Putin, Bring back order by returning Russia's stolen land to the rightful owners The Caucasians, Turks, Vikings, and Germans.

[Yugoslav Memes]

Vikings

what the actual

[Imperializt Russia]

The destruction of a rival and the ability to secure a place in the new order of things you've inherently carved out through your actions.

Yes, but if your nation is destroyed from MAD or another system such as that - there will be difficulty in securing a place. Unless you survive in a bunker, and wait for the radiation to die down.

Destruction of a country or a state is incredibly difficult, and may not have ever been truly possible, even at the height of the arsenals. I said destruction of the rival. Smashing a state to such a position where it is no longer able to act as a rival, or otherwise weaken it such that it cannot rival you for long.

This was the driving rationale on both sides of the Cold War. Nuclear strikes would be used to try and degrade the opponent's ability to fight in Europe.

The destruction of a rival and the ability to secure a place in the new order of things you've inherently carved out through your actions.

Unless you are a Hitler style genocidal maniac, this is simply not your goal. Rarely is the objective to totally destroy your rival through killing most of their people, let alone if they can kill a good number of your people in return. The US for example could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union in the 50s, and suffered much less damage in return. But mass killing for the sake of killing our rival was not our goal.

Or again the US or Israel could nuke Iran and thus eliminate a rival and they would be unable to respond. But again, killing Iranians just because we want them to die is simply not our goal.

Decision makers do in fact have morals or at the very least even if they are total sociopaths they still have to consider what the population of their country will tolerate.

The vast majority of people are not genocidal sociopaths.

Critically, Engleberg didn't specify "rational actor".

He said there was no benefit. I outlined the basic benefit.

You have this fascination with believing that "destruction of a rival" means the charring of every last child skeleton in the country. That's neither literally possible nor metaphorically true.

[Pasong Tirad]

Depends on how far China is willing to go over Taiwan. If we legitimize the RoC, there's a high degree of probability the PRC may attempt to take Taiwan by force. There's also a high likelihood China's already moving ballistic missiles towards the eastern and southern coastlines after Trump's statements (which were much needed, China needs to be rattled every now and again). The PRC won't tolerate a legitimized Taiwan, saying before that using military force isn't quite off the table.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could thrust the US and NATO (at least bits of it) into a skirmish (or full blown war) in the Pacific. This would mean for the first time in history, two nuclear powers would be in direct conflict. It's uncharted territory for sure at that point, and at this point, is probably the most "realistic" scenario involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Of course, none of thus could happen as well.

I doubt it, though. I think US foreign policy in East Asia is just shifting because America's losing the Philippines. They're moving to make some diplomatic waves with Vietnam and Taiwan to replace the huge loss of the Philippines - I mean, the Philippines needs the US more than the other way around, but it'd be nice to remember that America has a lot of US bases (active and not-active) in the Philippines, which has helped deter Chinese aggression in the region a little (also, Filipinos love America more than Americans).

Everything will be back to normal once the Philippines gets a new president. I don't know about Taiwan but if they're fine with keeping the status quo, a bit more US aid in terms of economic/military capability is probably all they're getting.

So, no, I don't think nukes will be used in a PRC v. ROC standoff.

EDIT: added an endnote to help get what I said back on track with the topic.

[Novus America]

Yes, but if your nation is destroyed from MAD or another system such as that - there will be difficulty in securing a place. Unless you survive in a bunker, and wait for the radiation to die down.

Destruction of a country or a state is incredibly difficult, and may not have ever been truly possible, even at the height of the arsenals. I said destruction of the rival. Smashing a state to such a position where it is no longer able to act as a rival, or otherwise weaken it such that it cannot rival you for long.

This was the driving rationale on both sides of the Cold War. Nuclear strikes would be used to try and degrade the opponent's ability to fight in Europe.

Unless you are a Hitler style genocidal maniac, this is simply not your goal. Rarely is the objective to totally destroy your rival through killing most of their people, let alone if they can kill a good number of your people in return. The US for example could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union in the 50s, and suffered much less damage in return. But mass killing for the sake of killing our rival was not our goal.

Or again the US or Israel could nuke Iran and thus eliminate a rival and they would be unable to respond. But again, killing Iranians just because we want them to die is simply not our goal.

Decision makers do in fact have morals or at the very least even if they are total sociopaths they still have to consider what the population of their country will tolerate.

The vast majority of people are not genocidal sociopaths.

Critically, Engleberg didn't specify "rational actor".

He said there was no benefit. I outlined the basic benefit.

You have this fascination with believing that "destruction of a rival" means the charring of every last child skeleton in the country. That's neither literally possible nor metaphorically true.

I am well aware that not every body would be killed, at least right away. But nuclear weapons are inherently indiscriminate, huge numbers would die, and multiple strategic nuclear strikes would devastate a country's economy, the collapse of state services, infrastructure, the economy means no healthcare, electricity, or food for many. No matter what you are engaging in mass destruction, which no reasonable person would want to do.

Sure you need to be willing to do so as a last resort, but you never WANT this to happen.

Again "smashing" you rival is not the objective for a reasonable actor. We could smash Iran with nukes, Israel could smash Iran with nukes, the US could have smashed the Soviet Union in the 50s. But we do not and did not. Because that was never the goal. No reasonable actor would consider that a benefit worth the damage caused.

The goal of deterrence is to NOT actually use the weapons. If they are used, you failed. The objective is to NOT use nukes and deter the other side from doing so. The objective of deterrence is preventing an attack on you. The US never planned to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviets.

Sure, you have a point, not all actors are reasonable. What if you get an insane dictator with no regard for morality or public opinion? What if he wants to kill for the sake of killing?
This is why missile defense is ESSENTIAL. And should be a major focus.

[Imperializt Russia]

Destruction of a country or a state is incredibly difficult, and may not have ever been truly possible, even at the height of the arsenals. I said destruction of the rival. Smashing a state to such a position where it is no longer able to act as a rival, or otherwise weaken it such that it cannot rival you for long.

This was the driving rationale on both sides of the Cold War. Nuclear strikes would be used to try and degrade the opponent's ability to fight in Europe.
Critically, Engleberg didn't specify "rational actor".

He said there was no benefit. I outlined the basic benefit.

You have this fascination with believing that "destruction of a rival" means the charring of every last child skeleton in the country. That's neither literally possible nor metaphorically true.

I am well aware that not every body would be killed, at least right away. But nuclear weapons are inherently indiscriminate, huge numbers would die, and multiple strategic nuclear strikes would devastate a country's economy, the collapse of state services, infrastructure, the economy means no healthcare, electricity, or food for many. No matter what you are engaging in mass destruction, which no reasonable person would want to do.

Strategic bombing has never really changed in its goals, only its methods.
Strategic bombing exists expressly to do these things, has done since 1916 and still does in 2016.

Again "smashing" you rival is not the objective for a reasonable actor. We could smash Iran with nukes, Israel could smash Iran with nukes, the US could have smashed the Soviet Union in the 50s. But we do not and did not. Because that was never the goal. No reasonable actor would consider that a benefit worth the damage caused.

Again, you're latching onto a meaning of "smash" which I have not. The US "smashed" the Iraqi Army in 1991. It was "smashed" again in 2003, along with state services. Aleppo has been "smashed", although to a heavier extent.

The Soviet Union could avoid all major population centres and seats of power in a first strike against the US, and simply nuke the petrochemical plants, the seaports and the major airbases (and probably the nuclear arsenal). Most elements of the economy will be sustained and injuries low.
The US has been "smashed" as it has A, too many problems to deal with and B, no method to deploy forces anymore, and will be unable to intervene in a European conflict.

The goal of deterrence is to NOT actually use the weapons. If they are used, you failed. The objective is to NOT use nukes and deter the other side from doing so. The objective of deterrence is preventing an attack on you. The US never planned to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviets.

I have every confidence that the US both did plan such and still does. They have little intention of doing so and it's certainly not the public policy.

Sure, you have a point, not all actors are reasonable. What if you get an insane dictator with no regard for morality or public opinion? What if he wants to kill for the sake of killing?
This is why missile defense is ESSENTIAL. And should be a major focus.

An "insane dictator with no regard for morality or public opinion" sounds like the sort of individual who would be most likely to make my scenario a reality, to be honest.

[Kubra]

Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.
In short, paper tiger.

[Novus America]

I am well aware that not every body would be killed, at least right away. But nuclear weapons are inherently indiscriminate, huge numbers would die, and multiple strategic nuclear strikes would devastate a country's economy, the collapse of state services, infrastructure, the economy means no healthcare, electricity, or food for many. No matter what you are engaging in mass destruction, which no reasonable person would want to do.

Strategic bombing has never really changed in its goals, only its methods.
Strategic bombing exists expressly to do these things, has done since 1916 and still does in 2016.

Again "smashing" you rival is not the objective for a reasonable actor. We could smash Iran with nukes, Israel could smash Iran with nukes, the US could have smashed the Soviet Union in the 50s. But we do not and did not. Because that was never the goal. No reasonable actor would consider that a benefit worth the damage caused.

Again, you're latching onto a meaning of "smash" which I have not. The US "smashed" the Iraqi Army in 1991. It was "smashed" again in 2003, along with state services. Aleppo has been "smashed", although to a heavier extent.

The Soviet Union could avoid all major population centres and seats of power in a first strike against the US, and simply nuke the petrochemical plants, the seaports and the major airbases (and probably the nuclear arsenal). Most elements of the economy will be sustained and injuries low.
The US has been "smashed" as it has A, too many problems to deal with and B, no method to deploy forces anymore, and will be unable to intervene in a European conflict.

The goal of deterrence is to NOT actually use the weapons. If they are used, you failed. The objective is to NOT use nukes and deter the other side from doing so. The objective of deterrence is preventing an attack on you. The US never planned to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviets.

I have every confidence that the US both did plan such and still does. They have little intention of doing so and it's certainly not the public policy.

Sure, you have a point, not all actors are reasonable. What if you get an insane dictator with no regard for morality or public opinion? What if he wants to kill for the sake of killing?
This is why missile defense is ESSENTIAL. And should be a major focus.

An "insane dictator with no regard for morality or public opinion" sounds like the sort of individual who would be most likely to make my scenario a reality, to be honest.

Again Europe is not the center of the world. There is a world and strategic objectives outside of Europe.

Umm, our major petrochemical plants, sea ports, and many airbases are in or near major population centers. Drop a nuke on the petrochemical plants and ports in Huston for example. Would kill hundreds of thousands or millions. Also the Soviets NEVER had any plan to avoid population centers. Which again, is impossible.

And the US would respond with nukes.

Strategic nukes are inherently indiscriminate. And no reasonable person is willing to use them unprovoked. Again the US could have nuke many countries including the Soviets. Only did Japan. And a lot has changed since 1945.

Assad is a mass murdering dictator destroying his own country. The US used PGMs on Iraq to minimize civilian casualties. We did not use nukes. Had we used them, far more would die. Baghdad would be gone. Nukes are poorly suited for precision strikes as the realize a lot more, but less concentrated and directed energy. Plus the fallout issues.

We had operational plans on how to use nukes on the Soviets, no intent to execute them without reason. Again our goal was to avoid war.

Your scenario, yes could ONLY seem reasonable for a completely insane dictator, but someone willing to do that is likely to use nukes regardless of what you do. Now your scenario, relies on hitting the enemy (and destroying yourself in the process, it makes no sense) BEFORE the missile defense is built. But not attacking after.

Thus you prove the US most build a very strong missile defense BEFORE such a person can rise to power, and must do so now. As right now no one will attack us over it.

[Herskerstad]

Putin is just designing lolblast weapons at this point. First Satan 2, now Status 6.

Trump's probably going to order something that'll make those look like a roman candle.

[Novus America]

Putin is just designing lolblast weapons at this point. First Satan 2, now Status 6.

Trump's probably going to order something that'll make those look like a roman candle.

Probably not. Bigger is not better. It is better, but more expensive to have more missiles. It is cheaper to have fewer missiles.
Both the US and Russia by bilateral treaty agreed to limits on the total number of warheads. NOT the total number of missiles. The US has complied by deliberately underequipping missiles. Minutemen can carry 3 warheads, but two from each have been removed. Trident 2s can carry 12 but only carry 8. Building a bigger missile when your missiles are already bigger than they need to be is silly.

An interesting, though never completed program based on this philosophy of quantity over size was the "Midgetman", designed to be a very small ICBM with just enough power to carry one warhead. The idea is it is better to not put all you eggs in one basket. Destroying a single "Midgetman" would only take out one warhead, so targeting one with something like Satan would be a waste. Larger numbers of smaller more nimble assets can be better than one big asset.

Building a missile that can carry 15 warheads and only putting one on it makes no sense. The US could already go from 450 Minutemen with 1 warhead to 150 with 3, but that would be worse than having all 150.

It is better to have 15 missiles, except that they cost more than one with 15 warheads. Destroy one missile with 15 warheads on the ground, in the boost or midcourse phrase, and you kill all 15 warheads. And it makes a bigger, single target. Say your enemy has 15 warheads, you have 10 midcourse missile defense missiles. Each have a 50% kill probability.

Now if your enemy has 15 missiles, you are screwed. You can only shoot down 5. But if the enemy sticks all 15 warheads on one missile, now you have a good chance of taking out all 15. You can fire all 10 interceptors at that one missile, and be almost certain to kill it.

Satan 2 is shit. Hey Russia, the 70s called. They want their missile back. Huge silo launched, liquid fueled missiles are obsolete.
Solid fueled is better. Mobile is better. Mobile, solid fueled it best. Minuteman is arguably also obsolete being immobile, but is at least solid fueled. But it still has a good use. The large number of Minutemen sprawled across Montana and the Dakotas are designed more to draw Russian missiles away from US cities. Present a large number of dispersed targets. hence why more with fewer warheads is better for them. They are a missile sponge.

Thing is the Russians, for dickwaving purposes, insist on have the same number of total warheads, but are much poorer than the US. They cannot afford as many missiles, so are stuck with fewer missiles with more warheads on each, while the US has more missiles with fewer warheads on each. Each side has the same total warheads, but the US has a large superiority in the number of delivery systems.

If your max is 3,000 warheads, you can have 300 delivery systems with 10 each, but 3,000 with one each is superior, but costs more.

Great thing is the US has a back up plan. If the treaty falls, we can just stick more warheads on existing missiles, while the Russians have to build more missiles, as their missiles are already maxed out, while ours have capacity to spare.

[Pope Joan]

I am saddened that this old track is still currently on point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY7S6EgSlCI