Nuclear arms. Necessary evil or threat?

[occupied]

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

 

[rightwinger]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

 

[martybegan]

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

Iran can end all of it by shutting down its nuke production, ending the rhetoric about destroying Israel and stopping all the "Death to America" Crap.

 

[martybegan]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

 

[occupied]

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

Iran can end all of it by shutting down its nuke production, ending the rhetoric about destroying Israel and stopping all the "Death to America" Crap.

Expecting total capitulation is futile. Iraq had clearly abandoned it's nuclear ambitions and we attacked them for it anyway. We are all going to have to do some backing up to deescalate tensions.

 

[martybegan]

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

Iran can end all of it by shutting down its nuke production, ending the rhetoric about destroying Israel and stopping all the "Death to America" Crap.

Expecting total capitulation is futile. Iraq had clearly abandoned it's nuclear ambitions and we attacked them for it anyway. We are all going to have to do some backing up to deescalate tensions.

What capitulation? They keep their government, they get to open up their oil exports, and they get to concentrate on developing their own country. No loss of territory, wealth or anything else.

 

[rightwinger]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

 

[martybegan]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

 

[occupied]

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

Iran can end all of it by shutting down its nuke production, ending the rhetoric about destroying Israel and stopping all the "Death to America" Crap.

Expecting total capitulation is futile. Iraq had clearly abandoned it's nuclear ambitions and we attacked them for it anyway. We are all going to have to do some backing up to deescalate tensions.

What capitulation? They keep their government, they get to open up their oil exports, and they get to concentrate on developing their own country. No loss of territory, wealth or anything else.

As I said earlier, Iran is ruled by conservative defense hawks. Do you think our own conservatives would ever give up their alarmist rhetoric and weapons programs under any sort of foreign pressure? Never, that shit only strengthens their resolve.

 

[rightwinger]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

 

[bertramhall]

Nukes for all. At this point that's the best you can do.

Not really, because without 1) solid detection and control systems and 2) enough of them to be a true deterrent the is too much of a risk of accidental response or even worse, an idea in the leaders of said country that they could take out their rivals nukes in a first strike.

Nukes for all, no exceptions.

Even for terrorists? Do you think is`s acceptable?

 

[martybegan]

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.

We may not be poised to attack but the appearance is all that matters to the Iranian government and their state-run propaganda media.

I did not mean to imply that they were actively working together but you cannot deny that a lot of militaristic people in three nations still use the idle threats issued by the others, mostly for domestic consumption, as a means to build up armies and hold power. Iran's leader says something so we put missiles in Israel, Israel says something so Iran steps up production of Uranium, we say something and everyone postures up with more sabre rattling. It's a cycle that must end.

Iran can end all of it by shutting down its nuke production, ending the rhetoric about destroying Israel and stopping all the "Death to America" Crap.

Expecting total capitulation is futile. Iraq had clearly abandoned it's nuclear ambitions and we attacked them for it anyway. We are all going to have to do some backing up to deescalate tensions.

What capitulation? They keep their government, they get to open up their oil exports, and they get to concentrate on developing their own country. No loss of territory, wealth or anything else.

As I said earlier, Iran is ruled by conservative defense hawks. Do you think our own conservatives would ever give up their alarmist rhetoric and weapons programs under any sort of foreign pressure? Never, that shit only strengthens their resolve.

We don't threaten another country with destruction every few weeks.

 

[martybegan]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

Again, genie out of the bottle. Only the promise of massive retaliation prevents rational people from thinking they can get away with a first strike, and even gives irrational people pause.

 

[rightwinger]

Ten nukes are as much of a deterrent as a thousand nukes

We need to reduce stockpiles

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

Again, genie out of the bottle. Only the promise of massive retaliation prevents rational people from thinking they can get away with a first strike, and even gives irrational people pause.

Is losing your ten biggest cities massive retaliation?

Japan quit after two

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. with only 10 nukes an opposing country could contemplate a first strike that would remove the other sides nukes, or eliminate it's command and control structure enough to prevent retaliation.

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

Again, genie out of the bottle. Only the promise of massive retaliation prevents rational people from thinking they can get away with a first strike, and even gives irrational people pause.

Is losing your ten biggest cities massive retaliation?

Japan quit after two

and 4 years of war. and only then because the Emperor forced the army to accept terms. (The Navy already knew the game was up).

And only if you can guarantee 100% delivery. if countries only had 10 warheads each, the impetus to develop countermeasures on the sly would be too good to pass up.

 

[rightwinger]

But would they?

If I have ten nukes that I can be 100% certain will reach their target. Would you be willing to give up your ten most populated cities?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

Again, genie out of the bottle. Only the promise of massive retaliation prevents rational people from thinking they can get away with a first strike, and even gives irrational people pause.

Is losing your ten biggest cities massive retaliation?

Japan quit after two

and 4 years of war. and only then because the Emperor forced the army to accept terms. (The Navy already knew the game was up).

And only if you can guarantee 100% delivery. if countries only had 10 warheads each, the impetus to develop countermeasures on the sly would be too good to pass up.

What threat justifies our two thousand nukes?

 

[martybegan]

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, and most world leaders wouldn't. But then you are assuming that the leaders of said country would be rational. And most of these states would not have ICBM's, they would at best have theater level ballistic missiles, and probably either cruise missiles or bombers, both of which can be stopped, thus removing the "assured" from mutually assured destruction.

The U.S. Could still beat those countries using only conventional weapons. We have no need for thousands of warheads

Again, genie out of the bottle. Only the promise of massive retaliation prevents rational people from thinking they can get away with a first strike, and even gives irrational people pause.

Is losing your ten biggest cities massive retaliation?

Japan quit after two

and 4 years of war. and only then because the Emperor forced the army to accept terms. (The Navy already knew the game was up).

And only if you can guarantee 100% delivery. if countries only had 10 warheads each, the impetus to develop countermeasures on the sly would be too good to pass up.

What threat justifies our two thousand nukes?

A threat that justifies a few of them justifies 2000 of them due to the theory of Mutually assured destruction. As long as Russia and China maintain credible arsenals, so must we. And reducing down to a few dozen makes us less safe, not more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A threat that justifies a few of them justifies 2000 of them due to the theory of Mutually assured destruction. As long as Russia and China maintain credible arsenals, so must we. And reducing down to a few dozen makes us less safe, not more.

If everyone has 2000 warheads, none will be used.
If everyone has 20, they might.

 

[martybegan]

A threat that justifies a few of them justifies 2000 of them due to the theory of Mutually assured destruction. As long as Russia and China maintain credible arsenals, so must we. And reducing down to a few dozen makes us less safe, not more.

If everyone has 2000 warheads, none will be used.
If everyone has 20, they might.

there is one additional condition, to have 2000 warheads you need to have a command and control system that can respond quickly, but not accidentally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A threat that justifies a few of them justifies 2000 of them due to the theory of Mutually assured destruction. As long as Russia and China maintain credible arsenals, so must we. And reducing down to a few dozen makes us less safe, not more.

If everyone has 2000 warheads, none will be used.
If everyone has 20, they might.

there is one additional condition, to have 2000 warheads you need to have a command and control system that can respond quickly, but not accidentally.

Of course.