[nabsgood]

The good: They've helped us end the cycle of wars between two major powers.

The bad: The danger that nuclear armageddon will be launched accidentally. The danger that nuclear weaponry will fall into the hands of terrorists who aren't affected by M.A.D. logic.

Overall I think that nukes, ICBMs, and MIRVs have been a good thing. They're scary enough that even the most strident war hawks are hesitant to use them. Even a nuclear attack launched by Al Quaeda probably wouldn't tip the balance, as an isolated nuclear attack with a most likely weak nuclear weapon wouldn't be as catastrophic as a large scale conventional war between the U.S. and China, China and India, China and U.S.S.R / Russia, or NATO and Warsaw pact would be / would have been.

The accidental nuclear holocaust is a freightening thought. We can't know for sure that nukes have been a positive good until we reach a point in time in which an accidental nuclear holocaust is rendered impossible.

[anconueys]

Do you think 2 countries would make a deal lik?e

-ok, since we can evaporate each other mutually, we will have a conventional war, and whoever wins, wins, since being conquered is better than being completely exterminated

...?

[RLRWai4B]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
napoleon wouldnt have been stumped by MAD, hed have figured out a way to make nukes useable.

The obvious one is to turn MAD on its head, so to speak. A nukes B. Selectively. Then A says to B - if you hit me back, I will launch the rest of my arsenal at you. B, if rational, and cautious, should be deterred from launching a second strike, for precisely the same reasons MAD is supposed to work in the first place. I don't think that would work. First of all, I don't see any government that would let another government nuke some part of its mainland without retaliation in kind. If the U.S.S.R. nuked Norfolk and only Norfolk, then I think that the U.S. would at least nuke something Soviet military stronghold like Kaliningrad. Then the Soviets would strike back, and, instead of being destruction all at once, it would be piecemeal nuclear destruction (up to a point. Eventually one party would feel threatened enough and unleash everything that they had. Then the other side would do the same).

Let's say that the nuclear attack was limited to a naval fleet. I still think that M.A.D. logic would hold. If the target was important enough that Country X believed that it was worth the risk of nuclear annihilation just to take out that target, then Country Y, now deprived of that super vital resource, would feel threatened enough to respond with some sort of nuclear retaliation to level the playing field. As in scenario 1, I don't think that governments will have enough restraints once the nuclear genie has been uncorked and the nukes are falling.

Now from 1946 to today no one's had the cojones to try this as A. We Yanks of course are peaceloving folks whod never do that. The Soviets didnt have a decent arsenal till Stalin was dead, and Khruschev didnt want to nuke anything cause he genuinely believed communism would win anyway, and Brezhnev was a cautious dude, and Mao was a true believer like Stalin, and not one to rely on technology in war.

But Alexander, Ghengis and Nappy? Youre really sure none of them would have gone beyond the caution and the ideological platitudes of the Cold War era? I don't know about those guys, but there's only one regime that I could envisage starting an offensive nuclear war... you guessed it, the Third Reich. Try imagining a Cuban Missle Crisis situation in which its the U.S. vs. the Nazis. This means that the Nazis have already subjugated the USSR and the Brits. They still have their scientists like von Braun, so they have a leg up on the U.S. in terms of ICBMs. They're faced with the option of launching an offensive nuclear strike in which they would lose 30% of their population, but annihilate the U.S. in the process. I think that Hitler or Himmler or Göring or Heydrich or whichever lovely fanatic who happend to be Führer would have ordered such an attack if presented with the opportunity to do so.

However, I don't think that they would launch such an attack if they knew that they were on equal nuclear terms with the U.S. Even they weren't so crazy to attack someone they didn't believe that they were going to conquer.

[loan4younow]

The problem I have with the "nukes prevent big wars" logic is that many weapons have been created in the past and thought to be so terrible that they would limit war (the first machine guns, IIRC, for instance). Yet we then went on to use them to slaughter each other.

So far, MAD has held, to the benifit of us all. Hopefully it will continue to hold. But of course there is the problem of nuclear proliferation + non-state and/or irrational actors.

-Arrian

[*Playergirl*]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I call their bluff. They've crippled the navy; crippling their major strategic center is the U.S.' only hope of winning this war if it otherwise stays "coventional." I nuke Kaliningrad, because I'm forced to. It's the only way to level the playing field; otherwise we've lost the war. If they respond with an all out nuclear assault, then so do I. an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?

[Heacechig]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't think that that would be politically tenable. The fact is that the Soviets just nuked the U.S. mainland and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans while simultaneously and seriously crippling the first line of U.S. defense, the U.S. Navy. It wouldn't be a total capitulation, but it would be seen as the first step towards one. The Soviets would have demonstrated that they were willing to nuke us to get anything that they wanted. The fear of slowly becoming a vassal state, combined with the fear and anger that would result from a severe loss of life and military strength, would dictate some response. Otherwise, there would be no way to ensure that the Soviets wouldn't just nuke Ft. Hood next month in order to get us to take our forces out Japan or whatever other objective that they'd want to take. You've been painted into a corner, you're at the mercy of the Soviets, and the Soviets could decide who lives or dies.



I think the problem is be coming up with a strategic interest that would make the first mover take that risk, be it through conventional or nuclear means. Your objective- a demilitarized West Germany- doesn' seem to be a benefit worth launching a preemptive nuclear strike. I think the underlying presumption underpinning MAD is that there's no strategic objecive that's worth running a serious risk of nuclear annihilation, which is exactly what a preemptive nuclear strike (or a sudden massive land invasion) would risk. First, lets not get hung up on the loss of the fleet, as YOU specified Norfolk. Presumably the attacker could deliberately select a target big enough to make his point, but small enough not to cripple the other sides conventional defenses so much. And I came up with demilitarizing Germany to fit into your scenario. I presume there are cases where there will be assymetry about the value of a particular concession, as well as assymetrical attitudes toward risk. I agree about the underlying presumption behind MAD - Im just questionoing whether that underlying presumption is strong enough, esp given a more creative strategy on the part of the nation that would use nukes to gain advantage, that we can consider MAD a 100% insurance against such usage of nukes. I dont think we can. I think we are taking a simple theory, without considering its ramifications and potential complexities, and taking a fairly limited historical sample (a liberal democratic society, versus a society that veered between extreme conservatism, and believing in its own triumphy by socio-economic inevitability) as confirming said theory.

[Cnbaapuy]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I don't think that would work. First of all, I don't see any government that would let another government nuke some part of its mainland without retaliation in kind. If the U.S.S.R. nuked Norfolk and only Norfolk, then I think that the U.S. would at least nuke something Soviet military stronghold like Kaliningrad. Then the Soviets would strike back, and, instead of being destruction all at once, it would be piecemeal nuclear destruction (up to a point. Eventually one party would feel threatened enough and unleash everything that they had. Then the other side would do the same). There were some wargames fought in the 60's, using a Soviet invation of Western Europe scenario. When the U.S. team used a few tactical nukes, the whole thing went very nuclear, very quickly.

Moral: No ones going to take a nuclear hit and do nothing...not if they have their own nukes.

[DoctorBretonDen]

Whilst all out wars of Major power versus other major power have not occured. What has happened in the last 60 years or so that is getting out of hand, is Major power attacking minor power.

In days gone by, the major powers would not interfer with smaller powers becuase everyone else would help and support that minor power. but now due to any excallation leading to nuke war, the major powers are too scared.

Examples.

Russia invades Afghanistan
USA invades Iraq Twice and Afhanistan
USA invades central america.
USA invades Somalia.

The big boys can now do as they please with no worries about anyone stopping them.

[avdddcxnelkaxz]

I am terribly sorry t osay this. but the loss of life in numbers due to Islamic attacks on USA territory are nothing compared to the attacks by USA forces in Islamic territories. SO whilst it is bad to lose lives at World trade centre, again , no one is stopping the USA invasion in those countries it chooses to invade.

If no one had Nukes, then i bet many countries would be now using Military force to remvoe the US forces from IRAQ.

[fedelwet]

umm, he didnt have any weopons of mas destruction if you recall!!!!


the UN were tricke by Bush !!!


The reason for the was was to get oil prices higher....

[RIjdrVs3]

Originally posted by Az

an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?


lotm, you're one scary mother****er. It's not an original thought. I've seen it before. I don't think that anybody negotiates after they've been nuked (if they have nukes and the capacity to deliver them)

[Kinds Of Pain Meds]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's not an original thought. I've seen it before. I don't think that anybody negotiates after they've been nuked (if they have nukes and the capacity to deliver them) to clarify, I never claimed it was an original thought. Its based on stuff I vaguely remember from the days when people actually challenged and explored the logic of MAD, which it is apparently no longer PC to do, even in Israel.

[Smittoh]

Originally posted by Arrian
The problem I have with the "nukes prevent big wars" logic is that many weapons have been created in the past and thought to be so terrible that they would limit war (the first machine guns, IIRC, for instance). Yet we then went on to use them to slaughter each other.
-Arrian India and Pakistan came way too close a fews years back.

And so did the U.S. and the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[maclaudser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

[sportlife]

Originally posted by Az

an then you die. I forgot to mention that with the note, they also offered to negotiate an end to the war, with fairly reasonable terms - the demilitirization of West Germany or something like that - not the end of liberty in the US. Is it worth initiating a globe destroying nuclear exchange for some strategic issue? And if it is, then wouldnt it have been so WITHOUT the Soviet first strike, which would prove MAD a failure?


lotm, you're one scary mother****er. I suspect he's very very good at Diplomacy.

[Pmeidstc]

If no one had Nukes, then i bet many countries would be now using Military force to remvoe the US forces from IRAQ. Do you honestly think there is any country, group of countries, or whole continents that could accomplish that via conventional arms if we were dead set?

Not that most nations have a motivation to try and remove us from Iraq in the first place.

[CialisBestPrice]

If I remember correctly, no war of aggression has been won since 1900.

The latest aggressor, George W. Bush, is about to lose.

The last serious aggressor, Saddam Hussein, was recently hanged.

[extessarere]

I don't care for legalist or semantic definition of peace and war. Most people, fortunately, don't care about it either.

Invading and occupying another country without being attacked first is aggression.

[AnthonyKing]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
I don't care for legalist or semantic definition of peace and war. . Im trying to imagine what a non-semantic "definition" would be. Semantics being the study of what words mean, and all that.

[Vomekayafboke]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
If I remember correctly, no war of aggression has been won since 1900.

The latest aggressor, George W. Bush, is about to lose.

The last serious aggressor, Saddam Hussein, was recently hanged. Germany won their wars of aggression against the french, and poles, and norwegians, and dutch, belgians, what have you. They lost their wars of agression against the brits and soviets. Not sure how the war with US was... I think they just declared war.