View Poll Results: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    41 75.93%
  • No

    4 7.41%
  • Maybe

    7 12.96%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 154

Thread: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

  1. #141
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by 00timh View Post
    You can definitely go back and read about how Carter let Iran cripple his presidency.
    Don't need to, I read about it in the newspaper ...

  2. #142
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    One minor, off-topic thing I'd like to add:
    Anybody who holds North Korea as an example of a country having nukes not to have been invaded is only repeating talking points from the media. The real threat is not from their nukes, which most will probably be failures and/or lack the sophisticated delivery systems to launch them. Even if they did, the Aegis system is operated by the ROK military, and it has shown capabilities of easilly stopping missiles, including ballistic and ICBMs.
    The real threat and the reason why we didn't invade North Korea is because of their artillery. Thousands of howitzers and missile launchers stationed at the DMZ, pointing towards the capital Seoul and its Metropolitan Area, which contains about 20 million people, or around 40% of the population.

    That's the real threat, not the nukes. So just stop the talking points about North Korea. Iran maybe, but to hold North Korea as an example of nuclear deterrent is a stupid argument
    North Korea's artillery isn't a worry. Iraq was the same way. They had vast amounts of artillery, but they didn't know how to use it. North Korea practices the same tactics. They create what are called "fire pockets" where they try to bait their opponent into pre-registered areas so they can concentrate their fires on them. All that you have to do to counter it is avoid those fire pockets. Once you breach that point of advance where you are inside their artillery ring, its over. They do not possess the prime movers (trucks) to move the artillery pieces. Sure, they may get off a few volley's before you get to them, but, artillery doesn't cause as much damage as everyone thinks. Also, judging by the economic purgatory North Korea enjoys, I would wager the maintenance of their equipment is not up to snuff either. South Korea has a more than capable air force that can take out their arty pieces in a reasonable amount of time. North Korea's major advantage is terrain and climate. I would hate to fight there.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  3. #143
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    North Korea's artillery isn't a worry. Iraq was the same way. They had vast amounts of artillery, but they didn't know how to use it. North Korea practices the same tactics. They create what are called "fire pockets" where they try to bait their opponent into pre-registered areas so they can concentrate their fires on them. All that you have to do to counter it is avoid those fire pockets. Once you breach that point of advance where you are inside their artillery ring, its over. They do not possess the prime movers (trucks) to move the artillery pieces. Sure, they may get off a few volley's before you get to them, but, artillery doesn't cause as much damage as everyone thinks. Also, judging by the economic purgatory North Korea enjoys, I would wager the maintenance of their equipment is not up to snuff either. South Korea has a more than capable air force that can take out their arty pieces in a reasonable amount of time. North Korea's major advantage is terrain and climate. I would hate to fight there.
    You're absolutely right that fighting there would be a nutroll-and-a-half. However, I do consider their artillery to be a major threat. Any artilleryman even remotely worth his salt would have registered targets at every single one of our installations, emplacements and possible lanes of attack. I personally like to assume my enemy is competent until proven otherwise. Hell, they've had 70 years to prep for it.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 02-06-12 at 05:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #144
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    North Korea's artillery isn't a worry. Iraq was the same way. They had vast amounts of artillery, but they didn't know how to use it. North Korea practices the same tactics. They create what are called "fire pockets" where they try to bait their opponent into pre-registered areas so they can concentrate their fires on them. All that you have to do to counter it is avoid those fire pockets. Once you breach that point of advance where you are inside their artillery ring, its over. They do not possess the prime movers (trucks) to move the artillery pieces. Sure, they may get off a few volley's before you get to them, but, artillery doesn't cause as much damage as everyone thinks. Also, judging by the economic purgatory North Korea enjoys, I would wager the maintenance of their equipment is not up to snuff either. South Korea has a more than capable air force that can take out their arty pieces in a reasonable amount of time. North Korea's major advantage is terrain and climate. I would hate to fight there.
    The Iraqis didn't have thousands of artillery pointed at a population center of 20 million which also happens to be the population, political, and economic center of the entire country
    I was talking about the case of a war started by North Korea. If we do a preemptive strike, there's still a chance of huge damages to the country as it is impossible to destroy thousands of artillery stretched out across a 100km+ border
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  5. #145
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    You're absolutely right that fighting there would be a nutroll-and-a-half. However, I do consider their artillery to be a major threat. Any artilleryman even remotely worth his salt would have registered targets at every single one of our installations, emplacements and possible lanes of attack. I personally like to assume my enemy is competent until proven otherwise. Hell, they've had 70 years to prep for it.
    Thats my point. They have far too many targets to engage. Without the proper prime movers to re-orient their arty pieces towards target areas that become active, they can only hope the opponent moves into areas they are "laid" on (arty term).
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #146
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    The Iraqis didn't have thousands of artillery pointed at a population center of 20 million which also happens to be the population, political, and economic center of the entire country
    I was talking about the case of a war started by North Korea. If we do a preemptive strike, there's still a chance of huge damages to the country as it is impossible to destroy thousands of artillery stretched out across a 100km+ border
    Concur with the scenario of them striking first. That would be disastrous. However, I do believe a pre-emptive strike would negate most damage as the closest and largest arty pieces could be targeted first. I don't pretend to say it wouldn't cause some damage though.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Concur with the scenario of them striking first. That would be disastrous. However, I do believe a pre-emptive strike would negate most damage as the closest and largest arty pieces could be targeted first. I don't pretend to say it wouldn't cause some damage though.
    You're right, a preemptive attack will dramatically decrease the damage by the artillery, but I'm not sure whether intelligence on the locations of the artillery is accurate. If it isn't, it's a goddamn shame on the NIS because it would mean that it ignored the biggest external threat to South Korea.
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  8. #148
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Rationality is not reserved exclusively to the theater of self-preservation. My point is that rationality is something that permeates into every part of an individuals life, a group of people's lives, or in this case a countries actions. Again, I'll use the example of Nazi Germany. They displayed a series of irrational decisions that led up to their lack of self-preservation. One could argue that Hitler was the irrational one. Herein lies my other counterpoint to you saying that a group of responsible people around one irresponsible person would stop an irrational act. How many Jews had to be killed before one of these "responsible" people stopped it? How many horrible tactical decisions had to be made before one of these "responsible" people stopped it? You don't want to hear any of that.
    First, committing genocide does not, in itself, threaten self-preservation at all. Consequently, the idea that the willingness of leaders to stand by genocide is evidence that they will stand by a nuclear launch is unfounded, particularly since genocide is often done in order to PRESERVE the "pure" state of a nation.

    Second, taking risks in conventional warfare is not the same as taking risks with nuclear warfare. Consequently, the idea that actions in conventional war that lead to military defeat are evidence that leaders would stand by and watch their superior launch a nuclear attack is unfounded. Destruction in conventional warfare is rarely certain. Destruction in nuclear warfare is certain.

    Again, the problem with your argument is that you keep trying to discredit a theory about how leaders interested in survival respond to nuclear weapons by pointing to how those leaders may act in situations that don't involve nuclear weapons. Fighting an ambitious war and losing like Germany did is just not evidence that German leaders wouldn't have stopped Hitler from unleashing nukes if he lived today. Committing genocide isn't evidence of that. For some reason, you seem determined to ignore the uniqueness of nuclear weapons and to ignore how the certainty of annihilation is a much more compelling reason to stop a 'crazy leader' than fighting a conventional war with a chance at winning.

    You continue to deny that there are people that would launch a nuclear weapon merely for the hate of it. Not everyone has a self-preservation trait. Many, many Islamic people have demonstrated that.
    I actually haven't denied that as the entire premise of Walt's argument is that people willing to launch nuclear weapons exist and that others would stop them. And yes, many Islamic people are willing to die for their cause. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that the majority of Iranian leaders are willing to let Iran be blown to pieces and that's the point of contention, so I'm waiting for that evidence.

    You can accuse me of lack of intellect all you want. You have not presented an argument besides to "LOL" my posts since we started this. If you want to cite another source besides your beloved Walt, go ahead. Or you could come up with an original thought of your own.
    I didn't accuse you of lack of intellect. I said that the fact that you chose personal attacks over reasoned arguments implied that you don't feel confident with your intellect.

  9. #149
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    One minor, off-topic thing I'd like to add:
    Anybody who holds North Korea as an example of a country having nukes not to have been invaded is only repeating talking points from the media. The real threat is not from their nukes, which most will probably be failures and/or lack the sophisticated delivery systems to launch them. Even if they did, the Aegis system is operated by the ROK military, and it has shown capabilities of easilly stopping missiles, including ballistic and ICBMs.
    The real threat and the reason why we didn't invade North Korea is because of their artillery. Thousands of howitzers and missile launchers stationed at the DMZ, pointing towards the capital Seoul and its Metropolitan Area, which contains about 20 million people, or around 40% of the population.

    That's the real threat, not the nukes. So just stop the talking points about North Korea. Iran maybe, but to hold North Korea as an example of nuclear deterrent is a stupid argument
    Well, I wouldn't use North Korea as an example of how nuclear deterrence works, but I would say that North Korea probably does want nuclear weapons for deterrence - it just doesn't have the money, knowledge and technology required to actually make a weapon that could provide more deterrence.

  10. #150
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    First, committing genocide does not, in itself, threaten self-preservation at all. Consequently, the idea that the willingness of leaders to stand by genocide is evidence that they will stand by a nuclear launch is unfounded, particularly since genocide is often done in order to PRESERVE the "pure" state of a nation.
    I know it doesn't threaten self-preservation. Never said it did. What I said was it shows a lack of rational thinking. He got his foot in the door in the beginning. He slowly worked his thoughts and beliefs into the gov't, and before you knew it, he had concentration camps. Hitler didn't come into power with that type of inhumane behavior. He worked it in slowly. My belief is that if he had nukes, he would have used them. Hands down. He would have made it an autocratic privilege to be able to launch them, and his "advisors" would have allowed it. Irrational thinking such as genocide leads a gov't down the road of irrational thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Second, taking risks in conventional warfare is not the same as taking risks with nuclear warfare. Consequently, the idea that actions in conventional war that lead to military defeat are evidence that leaders would stand by and watch their superior launch a nuclear attack is unfounded. Destruction in conventional warfare is rarely certain. Destruction in nuclear warfare is certain.
    Suggest you study Hitlers decision making process during WWII. He ordered the attack of Russia in the middle of another offensive. He disregarded the advice of a brilliant Field Marshal (Rommel) because he didn't want to retreat. The list goes on and on. Hitler attempted to build a artillery gun that could range Britain. Hitler committed suicide for God's sake. Thats the ultimate in lack of self-preservation. I know Iran is not Germany. Just pointing out that human beings are capable of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Again, the problem with your argument is that you keep trying to discredit a theory about how leaders interested in survival respond to nuclear weapons by pointing to how those leaders may act in situations that don't involve nuclear weapons. Fighting an ambitious war and losing like Germany did is just not evidence that German leaders wouldn't have stopped Hitler from unleashing nukes if he lived today. Committing genocide isn't evidence of that. For some reason, you seem determined to ignore the uniqueness of nuclear weapons and to ignore how the certainty of annihilation is a much more compelling reason to stop a 'crazy leader' than fighting a conventional war with a chance at winning.
    You and I understand the uniqueness of nuclear weapons. Would you depend of a leader that is irrational to do the same? I wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I actually haven't denied that as the entire premise of Walt's argument is that people willing to launch nuclear weapons exist and that others would stop them. And yes, many Islamic people are willing to die for their cause. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that the majority of Iranian leaders are willing to let Iran be blown to pieces and that's the point of contention, so I'm waiting for that evidence.
    I wouldn't have proof of that until happened. I never said this stuff was fact either. No one knows about this because it hasn't happened yet. However, I wouldn't want nutjobs like the Iranian gov't sitting at the table for any nuclear discussion. Any country that comes to UN meetings and makes statements that they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and that the Holocaust was a conspiracy is not some I want to meet with about a WMD.


    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I didn't accuse you of lack of intellect. I said that the fact that you chose personal attacks over reasoned arguments implied that you don't feel confident with your intellect.
    Your continued use of LOL on any argument I make, the suggestion that I don't read anything, and the suggestion that my experience in this region of the world carries no weight is what lead me to that conclusion. If you say it wasn't your purpose, I believe you.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 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
  •