That's a very good quote. But attacking and invading Russia I had in mind.
I did a bit of reading of my own and it would have indeed been a bad idea. But no one can deny he saw all of this coming.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
That's a very good quote. But attacking and invading Russia I had in mind.
I did a bit of reading of my own and it would have indeed been a bad idea. But no one can deny he saw all of this coming.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
nm
Last edited:
I'm having trouble following your logic. Probably because there is none:
StriderX: Clearly Russia is trying for a First Strike nuclear attack.
Me: Detailed analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations showing USA's pursuit of First Strike strategizing.
StriderX: I'd rather the USA does a First Strike because they're our besties.
Me: Detailed analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations showing USA's pursuit of First Strike strategizing.
StriderX: I'd rather the USA does a First Strike because they're our besties.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, The Morality of the Common Man. That is to say: "Good is my side of the line. Bad is theirs."
I'm not wrong, in a world led by the US vs one by Russia... it's an easy choice. The fact is while Russia is inherently following a state of polity that made sense over the last few centuries, it no longer does and they're afraid that no matter how powerful their military is... they'll always be losers in a globalised world.
The borders of conflict are drawn, regardless of posturing, it's simply a matter of time.
Last edited:
Well my point is that you immediately shifted ground when shown you were wrong to something that was a complete non sequitur. But as to your morality - do you really want to engage in an objective discussion over which of the USA or Russia has thrown its weight around more on the world stage? I mean, neither are going to come out with clean hands but making the USA out as the moral case because they're your "bestie" is an exercise in futility. Especially as, to return to your busted initial argument, they're the ones pursuing a policy of First Strike capability and trying to abandon MAD by achieving total nuclear dominance.
I was gonna point out that's impossible then remembered who's president of he USA right now, I don't think he would let impossible stop him trying something xD
It's hardly a Trump thing. You don't ramp up a nuclear program overnight. The article is from 2006. This was pursued under G.W.Bush, continued under Obama (who was objectively a great deal more warlike than Trump has so far turned out to be) and now continues under Trump, so far. I have no idea why you'd think this "impossible". The article covers the reality of it in quite some detail.
Because "pursuing a policy of First Strike capability and trying to abandon MAD by achieving total nuclear dominance" is impossible. In order to achieve a first strike victory against another superpower you need an attack large enough to trigger MAD by itself, if it isn't then they will be able to respond (and trigger MAD).
This was the whole reason both sides started scaling down nuclear stockpiles in the 80's.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I'm not sure that follows, the aim of first strike dominance is to enable a nation to launch a nuclear strike that will leave their opponent incapable of effectively retaliating (either through eliminating their ability to retaliate or by reducing their retaliation to a survivable level). Strictly speaking first strike capability isn't about having more weapons than the other guys, it's about being able to deliver sufficient weapons in such a way that eliminates the other side launch capability before they can use it.
If any side gets to the point where they can do that then MAD has effectively been negated. Equally if any side gets to the point where they can block a sustained nuclear strike then MAD is also negated, that's why the SDI program was so concerning.
The problem with that though is that between two superpowers it requires a nuclear strike so large it's effectively an extinction level event, so you trigger MAD all by yourself. This was realised in the 80's which is why they ended up winding down the nuke standoff.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I had a long post refuting your point but I've just looked up a few studies and it looks like you're probably right. I originally remember reading a few reports refuting the potential for nuclear winter but recent studies suggest a 20-35 degree celsius temp drop in the American midwest and a lack of food production for at least 2 years.
I bow to your wisdom sir.
Most of the nuclear winter scenarios envisage all out use of the big old megaton bombs (which aid in stratospheric injection) all perfectly causing runaway burn off in built up urban areas - the reality is these days the use of more efficient kiloton warheads in ways which result in less potential for that level of burn off and while not completely relevant to nuclear winter reduced fallout and a significant number would be used against military targets in more remote areas rather than 100% usage against urban centres.
It would still be pretty grim and a lot of people wouldn't survive but not quite the extinction level event usually banded around - average global temperature drop would be more in the range of 3-10C.
EDIT: It is one of the reasons why there was a lot of shift towards more efficient kt warheads when as above with the big old bombs even a successful first strike against another superpower had a good chance of also ensuring your own demise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
And there we go, now I've got to spend the rest of the week reading up on nuclear war. I'll be telling my employer to invoice you and ubersonic for all the work I won't be doing.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I'm relieved now being on the war!!
Haha, I gotta admit I'm actually shocked as I can't remember the last time I saw somebody admit they were wrong in GD.
Ironically the resulting nuclear winter would cause more death than the actual nuclear strikes, I.E because the winter has killed all crops it means the first world is starving and that means there's no spare food to help the third world so billions die in Africa/Asia/South America.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
If I ever become one of the posters on here who either refuses to acknowledge evidence or goes on some kind of semantic crusade to salvage my position you have my permission to nuke me.
For some weird reason i genuinely find the whole topic of nuclear war and cold war politics in particular to be fascinating, always happy to learn new stuff in that arena.
The nukes would have to hit primarily high-carbon deposits to do anything close to a nuclear winter, because of their low-yield tactical nature, a lot of cities are also incredibly dense in metals, glasses and concrete now that hitting would just be a population strike.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
It's important to remember that Nuclear Winter is currently, just a theory.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,151
The president was democratically elected though so the protests were little more than rabble rousing not wonder those in the east felt betrayed especially when the West kicked up a stink supporting the uprising.
That "rabble" was big enough to overthrow the president.
- Status