A Question for the Left

[pocketfullofshells]

Stop trying to refute a point I never tried to make.

dont ask the question then

 

[BigRob]

dont ask the question then

Well, I did not ask that question....

You responded to the idea that Bush's policies prevented terror attacks on US soil. I never advocated that position.

I stated that the absence of terror attacks does not mean the policies worked, same as the absence of nuclear war does not mean deterrence and arms agreements work.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, I did not ask that question....

You responded to the idea that Bush's policies prevented terror attacks on US soil. I never advocated that position.

I stated that the absence of terror attacks does not mean the policies worked, same as the absence of nuclear war does not mean deterrence and arms agreements work.

who on the left said that the lack of a terror attack ment Bush's policy worked?

And as I stated , the idea of MAD is based on known human behavieor of self survival. It is a theory, and stated as a theory, but the theory has its backing and reason to it. No one I know on the left has ever said it is the reason for no nuclear war, but it very clearly is a strong reason for there not to be one. So who is your question at? who said that MAD is the reason, and said it as fact?

and again, difference is, MAD is supported by Human nature and basic logic...Bush preventing a terror attack with his actions is based on Partisan Bush worship , as there is never anything to back up the claim, such as showing something that was prevented due to his policy.

 

[BigRob]

who on the left said that the lack of a terror attack ment Bush's policy worked?

No one I would wager, but that is not the point.

And as I stated , the idea of MAD is based on known human behavieor of self survival. It is a theory, and stated as a theory, but the theory has its backing and reason to it. No one I know on the left has ever said it is the reason for no nuclear war, but it very clearly is a strong reason for there not to be one. So who is your question at? who said that MAD is the reason, and said it as fact?

I have plenty of left leaning friends who take the idea of MAD as gospel truth. The only evidence mad worked in the absence of nuclear war. Therefore, there is no evidence it worked, and it is a fallacy and should be discarded.

and again, difference is, MAD is supported by Human nature and basic logic...Bush preventing a terror attack with his actions is based on Partisan Bush worship , as there is never anything to back up the claim, such as showing something that was prevented due to his policy.

Exactly. There is no evidence to back up either one, yet one seems to be taken as a legitimate claim, and one is laughed off as bogus. My question was simply why, when the logic used to arrive at the conclusions was the same.

MAD - unproven idea.
Bush policies preventing terror attacks - unproven idea.

Why is one viewed as legit and one not?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No one I would wager, but that is not the point.



I have plenty of left leaning friends who take the idea of MAD as gospel truth. The only evidence mad worked in the absence of nuclear war. Therefore, there is no evidence it worked, and it is a fallacy and should be discarded.



Exactly. There is no evidence to back up either one, yet one seems to be taken as a legitimate claim, and one is laughed off as bogus. My question was simply why, when the logic used to arrive at the conclusions was the same.

MAD - unproven idea.
Bush policies preventing terror attacks - unproven idea.

Why is one viewed as legit and one not?

Because the first is based on logic and known Human response. We know that the vast vasy majority of people have in internal response to try to live, and we know that anyone who is rational knows if the USSR tried to nuke the US we would nuked them, and we would both all be dead. We know that a logical rational person would not wish to have there whole nation killed in order to just attack someone else. it is the reason why Al Qaeda with nukes, does is more scary, because they do not fit the MAD profile as it applies to a rational nation. And do you disagree with the logic that a nation would have no will to see itself destroyed?

Now the Idea Bush's policy is why there was no attack since Sept 11.
What is that based on outside the fact that there was no attack? Also as stated there was no attack before Sept 11 , for a great deal of time, so it is not logical to say that the reason that there was no attack after from teh same group was his policy. No one making this claim can show any single act that was stopped due to his policy. you cant show that there is any logical reason to show that his actions stopped anything. with the same logic of no attack, we can say that Clinton's policy was then just as effective as there was no attack on US soil for years after . Its clear CLinton's was not.

Now if you want to point out somthing other then the simple fact nothing has happened in the US since, as evidence thats fine. Just like I could I am sure show you evidence that most people dont want to have there nation whiped off the face of the earth...But I think I dont need to becuse I am guessing you would agree.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Roman Empire fell due to a lack of force, and an inability to defend itself.

Trying the be The World's #1 Superpower (and, over-extending your assets) can have that impact. ​

 

[BigRob]

Because the first is based on logic and known Human response. We know that the vast vasy majority of people have in internal response to try to live, and we know that anyone who is rational knows if the USSR tried to nuke the US we would nuked them, and we would both all be dead. We know that a logical rational person would not wish to have there whole nation killed in order to just attack someone else. it is the reason why Al Qaeda with nukes, does is more scary, because they do not fit the MAD profile as it applies to a rational nation. And do you disagree with the logic that a nation would have no will to see itself destroyed?

Now the Idea Bush's policy is why there was no attack since Sept 11.
What is that based on outside the fact that there was no attack? Also as stated there was no attack before Sept 11 , for a great deal of time, so it is not logical to say that the reason that there was no attack after from teh same group was his policy. No one making this claim can show any single act that was stopped due to his policy. you cant show that there is any logical reason to show that his actions stopped anything. with the same logic of no attack, we can say that Clinton's policy was then just as effective as there was no attack on US soil for years after . Its clear CLinton's was not.

Now if you want to point out somthing other then the simple fact nothing has happened in the US since, as evidence thats fine. Just like I could I am sure show you evidence that most people dont want to have there nation whiped off the face of the earth...But I think I dont need to becuse I am guessing you would agree.

Deterrence has failed in the majority cases that it was tried. Nuclear deterrence is no different in my opinion.

You can argue that people do not want to die, and yes, in many cases that is accurate, but that is not an explanation for the absence of nuclear war.

People may not want to die, but they still want to dominate their opponents.

People have always "not wanted to die" yet wars continue. That is not a valid explanation for the absence of a nuclear conflict.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Deterrence has failed in the majority cases that it was tried. Nuclear deterrence is no different in my opinion.

You can argue that people do not want to die, and yes, in many cases that is accurate, but that is not an explanation for the absence of nuclear war.

People may not want to die, but they still want to dominate their opponents.

People have always "not wanted to die" yet wars continue. That is not a valid explanation for the absence of a nuclear conflict.

reg war is something that you can win, rational actors know that a nuclear war ends with all sides losing, a outcome not desired by anyone. They are not the same.

 

[BigRob]

reg war is something that you can win, rational actors know that a nuclear war ends with all sides losing, a outcome not desired by anyone. They are not the same.

A nuclear war where you eliminate the opposing sides nuclear capability does not end as a loss for the aggressor in my view.

 

[Dr.Who]

A nuclear war where you eliminate the opposing sides nuclear capability does not end as a loss for the aggressor in my view.

A limited nuclear war like the one that was actually waged against Japan also does not result in the end of all life as we know it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A nuclear war where you eliminate the opposing sides nuclear capability does not end as a loss for the aggressor in my view.

And do you know any nation that is sane, that belives that you can nuke anouther nation with nukes and not die as well? Name one please? None? correct becuse sane leaders know that you nuke one, you get nuked and you both lost. Unless one thinks they have some deffence against the nukes, and no one has one right now.

So please tell me what sane actor on the global stage ( nations) would think they could win a nuke war?

 

[BigRob]

And do you know any nation that is sane, that belives that you can nuke anouther nation with nukes and not die as well? Name one please? None? correct becuse sane leaders know that you nuke one, you get nuked and you both lost. Unless one thinks they have some deffence against the nukes, and no one has one right now.

So please tell me what sane actor on the global stage ( nations) would think they could win a nuke war?

I would put Iran into that category. North Korea. Israel even perhaps. I would put Russia into it, maybe even China.

The way we view nuclear weapons is fundamentally different than the way Russia views it, the way North Korea views it, and (up for debate) the way Iran will view it.

Your operative word is "sane" leaders. "Sane" from what point of view? International relations is all relative. What is sane to us might be insane to another and vice versa.

Remember when Russia invaded Georgia? They prepared to go to nuclear war over that conflict. No joke. Nuclear war. Did anyone in the US even consider that as a possibility? No.

China's weapons programs is focusing on EMP technology that could cause our stash of weapons to be meaningless if we cannot actually use them.

The idea that a nuclear war is so terrible it will never happen is naive in my opinion.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A limited nuclear war like the one that was actually waged against Japan also does not result in the end of all life as we know it.

yea limited, as in , no one else had nukes . We are talking MAD, and MAD only works with to nuclear powers, ( not counting non state actors)

 

[BigRob]

yea limited, as in , no one else had nukes . We are talking MAD, and MAD only works with to nuclear powers, ( not counting non state actors)

MAD is nothing but a deterrence theory. You can apply deterrence to anyone, and if it works, it should work in conventional terms as well. However, it rarely does.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I would put Iran into that category. North Korea. Israel even perhaps. I would put Russia into it, maybe even China.

The way we view nuclear weapons is fundamentally different than the way Russia views it, the way North Korea views it, and (up for debate) the way Iran will view it.

Your operative word is "sane" leaders. "Sane" from what point of view? International relations is all relative. What is sane to us might be insane to another and vice versa.

Remember when Russia invaded Georgia? They prepared to go to nuclear war over that conflict. No joke. Nuclear war. Did anyone in the US even consider that as a possibility? No.

China's weapons programs is focusing on EMP technology that could cause our stash of weapons to be meaningless if we cannot actually use them.

The idea that a nuclear war is so terrible it will never happen is naive in my opinion.

MAD is based on sane leaders, and Yes the leader of Iran is in fact sane. As is Israels, ...now North Korea yes he is insane, hence why its such a bad thing for them to have nukes. And do you realy think Putin was sitting there, thinking, we could nukes the US and somehow ever live to win that war?

Also what do you based your view that Russia was ready to use nukes in Georgia?