Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 82

Thread: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

  1. #71
    Student JakeFromWI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Last Seen
    10-13-10 @ 05:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. It just states that you have a prefernce.

    It doesnt -change- the fact that nuclear weapons deter war and that their absence mnakes war more likely, it simply states that YOU would prefer to not have that deterrence.

    Hate to tell you this, but your preferences do not overturn facts.
    Deterrence? Like when Russia invaded Georgia? Like when Pakistan and India fight? Like when Israel does their bi-monthly invasion of Palestine. WTF are you talking about.
    and so it goes...

  2. #72
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Actually it does...but your following me around from one thread to another, posting this inane comment over and over again, does not invalidate MY point.

    Since one nuclear war packs the destructive power of MANY non-nuclear wars, it's impossible to definitively say that the increased deterrence is worth the increased destructive power. Nuclear weapons have only been around for a little over 60 years. That's not a very big sample size, and the world has already had several close calls with nukes.
    Yeah, let's get rid of our nuclear weapons and hope all 500 countries in the world have the integrity to do the same. That will make us safer.

    Good lord.

  3. #73
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. It just states that you have a prefernce.

    It doesnt -change- the fact that nuclear weapons deter war and that their absence mnakes war more likely, it simply states that YOU would prefer to not have that deterrence.

    Hate to tell you this, but your preferences do not overturn facts.
    I'm only going to post this once, since talking with you is always like talking to a brick wall, and frankly I'd much rather discuss the issue with Ethereal than with you (which is why my comment was addressed to him and not you).

    This really boils down to game theory, so let's make a list of the rules for nuclear deterrence:

    Divide all countries into three groups: Group A are the non-nuclear powers, Group B are the nuclear powers without no-first-strike policies (Pakistan, North Korea), and Group C are the nuclear powers with no-first-strike policies (all the others).

    Now, who is deterred from attacking who, with what kinds of weapons? Group A/B/C countries are deterred from attacking a Group B country with conventional weapons, since they could elicit a nuclear response. Group B/C countries are deterred from attacking a Group C country with nuclear weapons, since they would almost certainly elicit a nuclear response.

    The question, then, is if these deterrents outweigh the carnage of a potential nuclear war. Let's examine the potential combinations of state actors that could have caused (or could still cause) a nuclear war, and how deterred they would be.

    USA-USSR (Both are deterred, assuming each trusts the other to keep its no-first-strike policy. Several close calls of nuclear launches though.)

    USA-Maoist China (USA is deterred due to possible Chinese nuclear retaliation. China is not deterred from conventional attacks if they assume the USA will not respond with nuclear weapons.)

    India-Pakistan (Both are deterred, assuming each trusts the other not to launch first despite Pakistan's lack of a no-first-strike policy. Close call with nuclear war.)

    USA-DPRK (DPRK has no additional deterrent to starting a conventional war if they assume the US will not launch nukes in response. USA is deterred if they fear nuclear retaliation, but not deterred from starting a war if they assume they can preemptively wipe out all of the DPRK's nukes.)

    Israel-Arab states/groups (Israel has no additional deterrent since no Arab states or groups possess nuclear weapons. Arab states/groups are not deterred if they assume Israel will not launch nukes in response to conventional weapons.)

    USA-Iran (USA is not deterred since Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Iran is not deterred from conventional weapons attacks if they assume the USA will not respond with nukes.)


    These are the only potential conflicts involving a nuclear power that I can foresee in the immediate future, or that have already occurred. In every single case, at least one party either has no deterrent, or there was a close call DESPITE the deterrents.

    Therefore, I think it's perfectly valid to question the assumption that the deterrence of nuclear weapons is worth the potential carnage. A nuclear weapons-free world is a laudable goal, even though it's somewhat distant.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-11-09 at 01:58 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #74
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Yeah, let's get rid of our nuclear weapons and hope all 500 countries in the world have the integrity to do the same. That will make us safer.

    Good lord.
    Did I say we should do that? No? Try to keep up.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #75
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by JakeFromWI View Post
    Deterrence? Like when Russia invaded Georgia? Like when Pakistan and India fight? Like when Israel does their bi-monthly invasion of Palestine. WTF are you talking about.
    Like....they wouldn't dream of doing that to the U.S. because we'd incinerate them within the hour. And if it weren't for the U.S. and its nukes, Georgia wouldn't exist, nor would Israel.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Did I say we should do that? No? Try to keep up.
    My mistake. It was Ethereal who said get rid of nukes. My apologies.

  7. #77
    Student JakeFromWI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Last Seen
    10-13-10 @ 05:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Yeah, let's get rid of our nuclear weapons and hope all 500 countries in the world have the integrity to do the same. That will make us safer.

    Good lord.
    That is not the suggestion. Quit being so childish.

    By the way - there are 9 countries with nuclear weapons, not 500. 5 of them signed the NPT (nuclear nonproliferation treaty), India, Pakistan, Israel and NK have not.

    So here's a great idea. Let's make more or just leave it at X,000 missiles and and so should the 4 countries that did not sign the treaty. Then they can make tons tons and more tons of nuclear bombs that they will never use on us because they are unstable governments with no order and led by loonies.

    I mean, MAD (mutually assured destruction)
    and so it goes...

  8. #78
    Student JakeFromWI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Last Seen
    10-13-10 @ 05:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Like....they wouldn't dream of doing that to the U.S. because we'd incinerate them within the hour. And if it weren't for the U.S. and its nukes, Georgia wouldn't exist, nor would Israel.
    Yeah just like no one would fly airplanes into buildings or blow them selves up. Because they'd be incinerated within a second.

    You can't say "terrorists will do anything to kill us" and then tell me you enjoy the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Holy Christ almighty help me through the day.
    and so it goes...

  9. #79
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm only going to post this once, since talking with you is always like talking to a brick wall, and frankly I'd much rather discuss the issue with Ethereal than with you (which is why my comment was addressed to him and not you).
    Here...hold on to this pile of "I really dont care" until it soaks iin really good...

    This really boils down to game theory, so let's make a list of the rules for nuclear deterrence...
    I'll stop you right there.
    You're deliberately setting up the parameters of you premise so that they support your conclusion -- otherwise known as a strawman.

    Nice try. Do better next time.

  10. #80
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama to seal US-UN relationship

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'll stop you right there.
    You're deliberately setting up the parameters of you premise so that they support your conclusion -- otherwise known as a strawman.

    Nice try. Do better next time.
    I knew you would respond with something asinine instead of addressing the post. If it was anyone else, I'd be inclined to explain it in further detail. But I know perfectly well that you'll respond with something retarded no matter how clearly I explain it, and as such, I'm not going to bother.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •