rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Equally, the only way to prove your viewpoint is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And then if you turn out to be wrong, we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? Most counties without nukes haven't been attacked. Ahem. To be serious. NONE of those WITH nukes have been attacked. And many of those that don't have their own are covered to some extent in alliances with countries that do have them. America has been attacked dozens if not hundreds of times since the end of World War 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 No it hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 No it hasn't. Google suggests otherwise... First to mind is the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 No it hasn't. Google suggests otherwise... First to mind is the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut... Nuclear deterrents don't stop terrorism, we're aware of this. You can't nuke a terrorist. Wouldn't be very efficient if you could, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 No it hasn't. Google suggests otherwise... First to mind is the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut... I think you have a fundamental problem with the definition of "attack". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The point / theory of MAD was that nuclear states wouldn't attack each other with nuclear weapons. And realistically that was a model and a best case scenario. The game also more or less assumes rational players. It's a theory based on imagined scenarios. It's not a definite fact. Nobody sensible has ever suggested that nuclear weapons will deter a conventional attack. Argentina invading The Falklands is an obvious example. ETA: Reagan's imaginary space based defensive weapons, if they had been real, would have undermined the supposed nuclear balance by neutralising the threat of Soviet retaliation in the event of a US first strike (the Soviets apparently believed that a US first strike was a real possibility). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My money is on Israel pulling the trigger first. Those crazy bastards are just itching for Armageddon (egged on by the bible thumpers in the US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The point / theory of MAD was that nuclear states wouldn't attack each other with nuclear weapons. And realistically that was a model and a best case scenario. The game also more or less assumes rational players. It's a theory based on imagined scenarios. It's not a definite fact. Nobody sensible has ever suggested that nuclear weapons will deter a conventional attack. Argentina invading The Falklands is an obvious example. ETA: Reagan's imaginary space based defensive weapons, if they had been real, would have undermined the supposed nuclear balance by neutralising the threat of Soviet retaliation in the event of a US first strike (the Soviets apparently believed that a US first strike was a real possibility). Mostly agree. Argentina could be fairly confident that the UK would not launch a nuclear retaliation for the Falklands invasion. They or anyone else would have thought several times about an attack on the UK though, you would no doubt agree, and that is what the deterrent is about. Cuba was a different scenario but with similarities. A standoff between two nuclear powers. Khruschev blinked because he was not prepared to risk Moscow for Cuba. None of this affects the fundamentals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 They or anyone else would have thought several times about an attack on the UK though, you would no doubt agree Yes and no. The model assumed full scale nuclear war - nuclear Armageddon. Anything less than full scale nuclear war is about an estimate of whether or not an opponent would be prepared to retaliate with nuclear weapons. There was always a lot of political debate around whether that could even be discussed - because it breaks the spell. But retaliating with nuclear weapons to anything less than a full scale nuclear attack seems unlikely, I should have thought. I doubt any of this really applies today. I would imagine that there are different models applicable today. And yet our submarines are apparently again shadowing each other today as if it were 1975 still. That seems a bit stupid and dangerous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 There is always the possibility that a nuclear armed state attacked on its home territory would react with nuclear weapons. That is the basis of the UK system because we don't have sufficient conventional forces to repulse a large scale invasion decisively. It works and we do not have to worry about a conventional attack so long as we have it. If we get rid it's a whole new ball game. It's easy to be blase having lived our entire lives in peace behind this shield. We disrupt it at our peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It's easy to be blase having lived our entire lives in peace behind this shield. Maybe for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It's easy to be blase having lived our entire lives in peace behind this shield. Maybe for you. I'm not blase. I advocate vigilance and keeping deterrence. To get rid would be blase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'm not blase. I advocate vigilance and keeping deterrence. To get rid would be blase. Seems a bit straw-man given that nobody serious is proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I'm not blase. I advocate vigilance and keeping deterrence. To get rid would be blase. Seems a bit straw-man given that nobody serious is proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament. Oh. Well that's a relief. I thought that was what we were debating. Thank goodness for common sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Well, the days of MAD may be over. This pm the appallingly left-wing BBC broadcast an interview with a North Korean defector who once held a reasonably senior position. He stated that he had absolutely no doubt that Kim Jong Un would press the button and make LA glow in the dark. A real pity as the Manhattan Beach Brewery is one of my favourite places. The trigger for this (sorry) could be something like a general uprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.