Except they wouldn't be wiped off the map and anyone with any understanding of the situation would know this. A government is liable to have any unconcealed nuclear infrastructure and military facilities destroyed by nuclear means, but that just gives the party launching the weapons all the more incentive to make sure their first blow is as devastating and destructive as possible so as to minimize the damage of the counter-strike, or diminish the likelihood altogether. Nuclear war is not some act of reciprocal genocide.There's no assurance that they would not, but they are much less motivated to do so than terrorist groups. Compare the cost/benefit analysis of a nation-state launching a nuke, versus a terrorist group doing the same. If a nation-state launched nukes at us, they'd be wiped off the map. If a terrorist group with a nuke in a truck detonated it, it would be very difficult for the US to respond in kind (since there probably wouldn't be an obvious target), and terrorists would be much less likely to care about staying alive or preserving their country anyway.
Really? Do you have any ****ing clue what the costs would be if you are wrong about your naive little notions regarding the potential for nuclear war? Are you willing to bet your own life on it? You don't even allow the possibility that you might be wrong at the expense of potentially millions of innocent lives.We can't have everything we want. There just isn't enough money available. Therefore our defense dollars should prioritize things that will do the most to protect people for the least cost, which is definitely not missile defense.
"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
- Khalil Gibran
What if I proposed that we tell the military that it can’t buy any bullets, bombs or cruise missiles for a year so that we can use the money saved on defensive programs. That ought to make the anti-war crowd happy shouldn’t it?
I'm not saying that there will never be a nuclear conflict between nation-states. The probability of one occurring between India and Pakistan is frighteningly high, for example. But no nation threatens the United States with nukes. Could that change in 20 years? I suppose. But it's far less likely than terrorists getting ahold of a nuke. While international wars are not quite obsolete yet, they are rapidly being replaced by wars between nation-states and smaller groups of militants.Originally Posted by Demon of Light
Again, we can't have everything we want. There isn't enough money to guard against every possible threat, so we need to focus our resources where they are most effective.Originally Posted by Demon of Light
OK, so we might not wipe out their capital city with nukes. But all of that infrastructure you just mentioned would be, major government sites located in cities would undoubtedly be bombed by conventional means, and one way or another the offending regime would be deposed.Originally Posted by Demon of Light
There is no nation on earth that has the capability of launching a nuclear first strike so devastating that it would in any way hinder the United States' ability to destroy anything and everything it wanted. Not even Russia.Originally Posted by Demon of Light
I think this is where I'm gonna bow out of the thread. Your last paragraph perfectly illustrates the fact that this is a topic that people become emotional about, instead of employing a level-headed analysis of the costs relative to the actual risk we face.Originally Posted by Demon of Light
So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread make an argument along the lines of "Missile defense is more cost-effective at preventing casualties than increasing our port security or improving our intelligence-gathering" which is the kind of rational, calculating response I was hoping to respond to. Since I don't see any indication that that's going to change, I think I'm gonna call it quits in this thread.
Last edited by Kandahar; 04-19-11 at 03:17 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
While the military budget can be cut, starting with the immediate cessation of all US activities in Libya, followed by withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, that makes no noticeable dent in our national fiscal crisis.
Taking part of the savings to buy rope to hang the Amnesty Politicians, and using much of the rest to seal our southern border and to identify and prosecute the employers of the invading army of Mexicans, will do much to improve the economic picture inside the US.
But, in addition, it's imperative that the United States rush through work on improved theater missile defences and national defenses. There's one reason, and one reason only, that China developed a hypersonic cruise missile. That reason is our carrier task forces. The only feasible defense against those weapons are space-based detection and destruction systems, coupled with second and third generation ABL systems. ABL is an unqualified success and the goverment needs to expand from the successful prototype to more practical variations that fit in smaller, carrier based aircraft, to start with.
That's clearly less reliable that smuggling a bomb into the US using commercial carriers subject to inspection and interdiction.
Have any of you people ever tried to understand why the United States has invested litteraly trillions of dollars in it's SSBN system?
That's because, to make it plain, any missile currently launched against the American fixed position assets are guaranteed to successfully strike what they're aimed at. Thus if Moscow or China launches againt our fixed ICBM sites in the US, those assets must launch on detection, or they're gone. BUT, it's not possible to launch against our SSBN forces with any guarantee of success.
Reagan's MX missile plan was a cheaper alternative to the SSBN, but that was killed because of limp dicks citing "destabilization". Total silliness. Shifting defense assets on the nation's rail system, or dedicating new rail systems to shuffle them about wouldn't cost anythin like the $200 billion dollars a Trident submarine cost, and would have had no noticeable impact on the strategic balance.
Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 04-19-11 at 05:04 AM.
Note: Taiwan is not "Chinese territory", ie, territory under the sovereignity of Beijing. Taiwan is an indpendent sovereign nation.Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes
BEIJING, Friday, July 15 - China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.
"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.
The above threat is not an isolated incident but has been made on multiple occasions, especially after Bernie Schwarz handed MIRV technology to the Chinese and also increased the reliability of their Long Shot II launch system.
Note also that China has engaged in air piracy, attacking and forcing a US surveillance plane in international air space and forcing it to land in Chinese territory.
China has developed a long range hypersonic cruise missile for use against carrier task forces.
China has claimed huge swathsh of the open sea as it's "territorial" waters, irregardless of the international definition of international waters.
China has repeatedly surfaced it's diesel electric submarines within only a few thousand yards of our carrier task forces, a needless provocation intended to demonstrate our carrier vulnerability to a sneak attack.
China has recklessly engaged in a-sat demonstrations that generate orbital debris that threatens operatons in LEO, not to mention the clear threat against US CCCI assets.
Yet you people say the US should not focus on true defensive measures, that such measures are "destabilizing".
IMO (In the Mayor's Opinion) the United States shouldn't pay attention to the frightened females cowering at the sight of a mugger with a switchblade. The US should be saying, in it's best Crocodile Dundee Accent, "that's not a knife, THIS is a KNIFE!"
Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 04-19-11 at 04:59 AM.
There WILL be another Hitler, Stalin, Khan, or Napoleon in the future.
Hitler and Napoleon thought Russia was an viable target because Russia always appears weak and backwards (because it is weak and backwards...), but it's never so weak as to lose a military confrontation. The Left is insisting not only that the United States appears weak, but that the United States must BE weak. Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton's ineffectual response to terrorism told the terrorists one thing: The United States has guns, not guts. Hence 9-11 was deemed feasible. The US is lucky the attackers were directed by Afghanistan and not a nation with actual arms of it's own.
Even after 9-11 the Left's resolve to defend the nation has been shown to be lacking, with assorted left-wing groups openly agitating against effective military responses to terrorism and providing the enemy with useful propaganda such as drawing false moral equivalences between the beheading terrorists who use their own children as bomb delivery systems to target nothing but civillians and the US, which is bending over backwards to minimize collateral damage.
There will be war, always. There will be big war, again.
That is human history.
No matter what the economic circumstances the USA cannot afford to lose the ability to defend itself.
Personally I believe whats happening throughout the middle east will not turn out good for us in the end, we need the ability to defend ourself at the drop of a hat. That does not translate into im for invading or attacking other countries I am not. I am not for nation building and I would like very much for us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan save our kids and our cash.