• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the people in these videos stereotypical liberals?

Are the people in these videos stereotypical liberals?

  • No, there is nothing wrong with them.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
Do you think anyone in the US would tolerate even 5 nuclear missiles going off inside the US?

Do you think anyone in the US would tolerate a SWAT team shooting even one tear gas canister into their home?

Yet we all accept that SWAT teams and tear gas have a place in keeping the peace.
 
SWAT teams are not analogous to the nuclear balance in the Cold War.

Okay... I'll make it easier for you.

Using your own analogy and 'military weaponry.'

Do you think the American people would tolerate even one foreign cruise missile fired into the heartland of the United States? Or would they tolerate even one foreign tank roaming through St Louis or Milwaukee shooting up homes?

:confused:
 
No, of course not, but only having one American tank isn't sufficient to curb that threat.

Whereas having a fairly small nuclear arsenal, particularly the first-strike invincibility of missile subs, does effectively create "MAD" in the Soviet-US instance.

No Soviet leader would tolerate 5 Russian cities being obliterated, just as no American leader would tolerate 5 American cities being obliterated.

So all either side really needs is 5 missiles to create MAD and therefore a balance which will assure no missiles ever being used by either side.

And, if something goes horribly wrong, only 10 cities will be obliterated.

Whereas if the balance is between 10,000 missiles on each side, despite possessing the same ability to create mutually assured destruction and a balance of power, should something go wrong the results are vastly more disastrous.

Neither the US nor the Soviets benefitted at all from our vast missile stores, which is exactly why both parties moved to regulate and reduce the stockpiles together.

The SALT treaties show the necessity of regulation and the danger of uninhibited competition.
 
Whereas having a fairly small nuclear arsenal, particularly the first-strike invincibility of missile subs, does effectively create "MAD" in the Soviet-US instance.

In post #41, you argued that 100 nuclear missiles would be enough to effectively maintain "the balance of power."

In post #49, I asked you the following...

How about if each side had 50 missiles? Or only 10? Also an effective deterrence? And how would those 100 or 50 or 10 nuclear warheads be distributed? Would they all be land-based in silos? Or carried by bombers? Or submarines?

In your last post, you suggest again that a 'fairly small' nuclear arsenal would be sufficient to create "MAD." So I'll ask again. Would 50 be sufficient? How about 10? How about 2?

What is the minimum number of nuclear warheads required to maintain MAD?

:confused:
 
I don't know the exact number of missiles you'd need, that'd be a calculation that would be created by each country based upon their values.

I suspect the Soviets would be value their people less, but still I'd doubt they'd be willing to allow even 1 missile to hit their country without responding with their full arsenal.

I can't imagine more then 50 being needed. 50 nuclear missiles could destroy every major American industrial center.

To create truly functional MAD you'd need to have the arsenal submarine based because subs can't effectively be countered, so there would never be a temptation for a first strike in an attempt to cripple the other sides retaliatory ability.

All of this isn't my opinion, it's a historical fact, it's what Henry Kissinger and the SALT treaties actually did, although not to the degree that I (and Kissinger) think it should be done.
 
If I met that guy in Britain I'd immediately despise him as a selfish, classist, xenophobic, snob. We don't really use the term "liberal" but he is definetly NOT left-wing.

I'll say with a huge degree of certainty that he has voted for the Conservative party in Britain his entire life.
 
I don't know the exact number of missiles you'd need, that'd be a calculation that would be created by each country based upon their values.

I suspect the Soviets would be value their people less, but still I'd doubt they'd be willing to allow even 1 missile to hit their country without responding with their full arsenal.

I can't imagine more then 50 being needed. 50 nuclear missiles could destroy every major American industrial center.

To create truly functional MAD you'd need to have the arsenal submarine based because subs can't effectively be countered, so there would never be a temptation for a first strike in an attempt to cripple the other sides retaliatory ability.

All of this isn't my opinion, it's a historical fact, it's what Henry Kissinger and the SALT treaties actually did, although not to the degree that I (and Kissinger) think it should be done.

I think these response clearly indicate you really don't understand MAD. Nor do you understand military strategy. I'm not trying to be flippant here. But you just pulled the number '50' out of your hat. It means nothing. Any more than the idea that the number of nuclear missiles required for MAD is based on our values.

While MAD is very controversial, because of the very nature of the threat it poses, it was also based on very carefully thought out strategies involving years of research and deployment and political maneuvering, including 'first strike capability' and 'second strike capability', the development of MIRVS and submarine ballistic launch capability, among many other factors.

It might make interesting reading. You obviously know enough to mention SALT and second strike capability. But then you discard that knowledge with your baseless assumption that 50 would be sufficient. Entirely baseless.
 
Last edited:
It's a simple calculation:

The amount of nuclear missiles that can be considered legitimate for each side is whatever the amount other side considers a deterrent.
 
It's a simple calculation:

The amount of nuclear missiles that can be considered legitimate for each side is whatever the amount other side considers a deterrent.

And your simple calculation (based on your last post) determined that for the US and Soviet Union the sufficient number was or is 50?

How many of those 50 should be first strike and how many should be second strike? How many should be MIRV and how many cruise missile nuclear warheads? Of the land-based missiles, where should they be based? Are these also simple calculations?

:2wave:
 
I love those wife swapping shows. Great entertainment, but not one I would say represents 'typical' anything. I mean really, have you ever met a family of pirates?
 
I'm admitting that it isn't as simple as picking a number out of a hat, but, once you have some kind of estimation of what the amount needed for deterrence is, then you can calculate other factors- and a I guarantee no matter how conservative you are in your calculations it'll never be anywhere near what our current stockpile are.

The way our current stockpiles were built, at least up to SALT, was both parties just built as many as possible, regardless of how many were actually needed.

I mean what's the current US stockpile, like a few thousand? How could that many ever possibly be useful? It just couldn't, even a fraction of that would be enough to vaporize the entire Eastern Bloc.
 
The way our current stockpiles were built, at least up to SALT, was both parties just built as many as possible, regardless of how many were actually needed.

Well I guess we'll have to leave it at this, because I think we've reached the closest we'll ever get to agreement on the issue. What I will say is that most reasonable studies of MAD would indicate that many more than 50 or 100 nuclear warheads were needed. And I think it's also fair to say that most experts realized by the 1970s that we'd reached a point of overkill. But whether overkill was reached at 1,000, or 5,000 or 10,000 is a matter of debate well beyond and 'simple calculations' by you or me.

:2wave:
 
I love those wife swapping shows. Great entertainment, but not one I would say represents 'typical' anything. I mean really, have you ever met a family of pirates?

As a matter of fact; my neighbors, The Arrrringtons, are pirates.
 
I'm admitting that it isn't as simple as picking a number out of a hat, but, once you have some kind of estimation of what the amount needed for deterrence is, then you can calculate other factors- and a I guarantee no matter how conservative you are in your calculations it'll never be anywhere near what our current stockpile are.

The way our current stockpiles were built, at least up to SALT, was both parties just built as many as possible, regardless of how many were actually needed.

I mean what's the current US stockpile, like a few thousand? How could that many ever possibly be useful? It just couldn't, even a fraction of that would be enough to vaporize the entire Eastern Bloc.

That's the point of MAD and what makes it so effective. During a war a nation is prepared to make huge sacrifices for victory. Losing 5 or 10 cities could be seen as a reasonable sacrifice to win a war. But if each side has thousands of ICBMs that it is willing to use they know that it would amount to the end of mankind. Losing 5 cities is not mutually assured destruction. Wiping out all of humanity is.
 
Yes. But I also think the other couple was a conservative stereotype. Can't blame the guy for calling her a fat, dumb, redneck. She is.

Actually, she was really sweet at heart. The british guy was a jackass with no civility whatsoever.
 
Actually, she was really sweet at heart. The british guy was a jackass with no civility whatsoever.

I'm not saying that dumb rednecks can't be cool people. I have some friends that are dumb rednecks. Doesn't change the fact that they are in fact dumb rednecks.
 
I'm not saying that dumb rednecks can't be cool people. I have some friends that are dumb rednecks. Doesn't change the fact that they are in fact dumb rednecks.

But you don't sit there and demean them by referring to them as "Hey, dumb redneck".

I guess you just had to see the show. It wasn't that the british guy was liberal; he was just a stupid jackass.
 
But you don't sit there and demean them by referring to them as "Hey, dumb redneck".
I guess you just had to see the show. It wasn't that the british guy was liberal; he was just a stupid jackass.

No, of course not. The guy was a dick, douche bag, stereotypical liberal. And the woman was a dumb redneck. Not that I would call either of them that to their face.

The liberal woman did seem rightfully ashamed of her husband though. That's good.
 
I would like to shake that Englishman's hand.




















And then headbutt him right in his smug ****ing face.
 
Back
Top Bottom