65 years ago today

[PLC1]

It is the declared policy of the United States, and has been since we signed the NPT, to work towards a world that is free of nuclear weapons. It is not a new idea.

Exactly my point. It is nothing new.

As for nuclear weapons keeping the peace, they do indeed discourage big wars between the more powerful nations of the world. MAD kept the cold war cold, after all.

Still, we're like a gang of bandits, each afraid of the others' pistols. Perhaps one day we will evolve to the point that we're more like a band of brothers, each concerned for the well being of the other.

But no, I don't expect to see any such development in my lifetime. The naked ape is still pretty warlike.

 

[BigRob]

Exactly my point. It is nothing new.

As for nuclear weapons keeping the peace, they do indeed discourage big wars between the more powerful nations of the world. MAD kept the cold war cold, after all.

Well, I disagree that MAD was/is a success in any way shape or form. The only "evidence" that it "worked" is that there was not a WWIII, however there are local examples of it breaking down. I would not put any stock in MAD to prevent a war.

Still, we're like a gang of bandits, each afraid of the others' pistols. Perhaps one day we will evolve to the point that we're more like a band of brothers, each concerned for the well being of the other.

Well, under the theory of realism, everyone is more or less self-interested and afraid of the other one. In this theory even if all weapons are eliminated, people will still fight because one has a bigger rock etc...you get the idea.

Where that theory winds up to bring about peace, is to envision a world where everyone has nuclear weapons. That would create (assuming everyone had a credible 2nd strike etc) a scenario in which a war would be so costly to fight, it would not ever be worth it.

Personally, I don't really have a problem using our power to our own benefit, it won't be around forever, we might as well make the most of it.

 

[PLC1]

Well, I disagree that MAD was/is a success in any way shape or form. The only "evidence" that it "worked" is that there was not a WWIII, however there are local examples of it breaking down. I would not put any stock in MAD to prevent a war.

That seems inconsistent with the rest of your post, but, OK, it wasn't a total success. It did, as I said, prevent a WWIII between the Soviets and the US, but it did nothing to prevent smaller undeclared wars, like Korea and Vietnam.

We won the cold war without destroying Eastern Europe or being destroyed ourselves. Surely, that is a positive thing.

Well, under the theory of realism, everyone is more or less self-interested and afraid of the other one. In this theory even if all weapons are eliminated, people will still fight because one has a bigger rock etc...you get the idea.

Where that theory winds up to bring about peace, is to envision a world where everyone has nuclear weapons. That would create (assuming everyone had a credible 2nd strike etc) a scenario in which a war would be so costly to fight, it would not ever be worth it.

Personally, I don't really have a problem using our power to our own benefit, it won't be around forever, we might as well make the most of it.

Yes, until the human race evolves beyond the gang of thieves with everyone afraid of the others' pistols scenario, then we need to keep ours loaded and well maintained.

Someday, our descendants will look back on the 21st. century much the way we look back at the Middle Ages, if, that is, we don't destroy our civilization in some cataclysmic Armageddon first.

 

[Pandora]

My problem with the treaty is that is basically allows the Russians to maintain strategic nuclear parity with the United States, and at the same time, language was included (while non-binding I believe) that will limit American missile defense capability. So ultimately we are left with strategic parity with the Russians, but it ignores the problem of shifting Russian views to more of a tactical nuclear arsenal, which will not be covered. If that is ignored, then any new arms agreements is really meaningless in my opinion.

Basically, in terms of nuclear parity, it puts the US behind Russia, and while that does not mean a ton, it can be important in terms of a credible nuclear umbrella, which helps to prevent further proliferation globally.

The first part of your post made me feel better but its this last part I clipped out that really does scare and bother me. I cannot understand any president agreeing to this. Well at least not any president willing to look after and protect America first.

 

[BigRob]

That seems inconsistent with the rest of your post, but, OK, it wasn't a total success. It did, as I said, prevent a WWIII between the Soviets and the US, but it did nothing to prevent smaller undeclared wars, like Korea and Vietnam.

What is the actual evidence that MAD prevented WWIII other than "the war did not occur"? That is not evidence of anything.

As for being "inconsistent", it is not inconsistent to argue that the theory of MAD has no reliability, but at the same time point out that before the Soviets even possessed nuclear weapons, (ie before MAD) we relied on nuclear weapons in an effort to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.

Nor is it inconsistent to point out "there can be an argument made" that nuclear weapons did X, Y, and Z, that is just an observation of theories that are out there.

We won the cold war without destroying Eastern Europe or being destroyed ourselves. Surely, that is a positive thing.

It is a positive thing yes.

 

[BigRob]

The first part of your post made me feel better but its this last part I clipped out that really does scare and bother me. I cannot understand any president agreeing to this. Well at least not any president willing to look after and protect America first.

I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to say I have a problem with eliminating some of our nuclear weapons, even Bush eliminated a large amount of them. My problem stems more from the fact that President Obama was horribly out-negotiated in the process.

We could have gotten so much for agreeing to this deal, we did not need, but the Russians did, and instead we got nothing basically.

 

[Pandora]

I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to say I have a problem with eliminating some of our nuclear weapons, even Bush eliminated a large amount of them. My problem stems more from the fact that President Obama was horribly out-negotiated in the process.

We could have gotten so much for agreeing to this deal, we did not need, but the Russians did, and instead we got nothing basically.

are we currently making new weapons? Weapons that would defend our country in case of an attack?

 

[Gipper]

I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to say I have a problem with eliminating some of our nuclear weapons, even Bush eliminated a large amount of them. My problem stems more from the fact that President Obama was horribly out-negotiated in the process.

We could have gotten so much for agreeing to this deal, we did not need, but the Russians did, and instead we got nothing basically.

Agreed. This is another example of BO's incompetence. Or, could it be he intends to weaken America?

 

[PLC1]

What is the actual evidence that MAD prevented WWIII other than "the war did not occur"? That is not evidence of anything.

As for being "inconsistent", it is not inconsistent to argue that the theory of MAD has no reliability, but at the same time point out that before the Soviets even possessed nuclear weapons, (ie before MAD) we relied on nuclear weapons in an effort to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.

Nor is it inconsistent to point out "there can be an argument made" that nuclear weapons did X, Y, and Z, that is just an observation of theories that are out there.



It is a positive thing yes.

Well, you did seem to think that the analogy of the gang of thieves living in peace because each is afraid of the others' weapon is a pretty good one, and that does look a lot like the Soviets and the US with their (our) nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Maybe that was a misinterpretation.

No, there really is no proof that having such weapons actually prevented WWIII, other than the fact that there was no WWIII. There is no way to know for sure that there would not have been a shooting war had those weapons not existed, but it does seem like a good bet to me.

 

[BigRob]

are we currently making new weapons? Weapons that would defend our country in case of an attack?

Yes..

 

[BigRob]

Well, you did seem to think that the analogy of the gang of thieves living in peace because each is afraid of the others' weapon is a pretty good one, and that does look a lot like the Soviets and the US with their (our) nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Maybe that was a misinterpretation.

I was just pointing out a theory that is out there, I was not really agreeing with it in its entirety persay.

As for why no war took place, that is up for debate I suppose, but I don't think we can simply say "MAD prevented WWIII."

No, there really is no proof that having such weapons actually prevented WWIII, other than the fact that there was no WWIII. There is no way to know for sure that there would not have been a shooting war had those weapons not existed, but it does seem like a good bet to me.

I think we need to come up with some evidence if we are going to buy into the idea of deterring rouge nuclear states basically with the MAD concept. Otherwise, it seems our plan to "deter" these rouge nuclear powers is a pipe-dream.

 

[Pandora]

Yes..

What kind?

and how come the news isn't reporting it?

 

[BigRob]

What kind?

Well, that is a very broad question, and also somewhat misleading. For example, the F-22 program was ended, but we are still rolling out something like 2000 F-35's (if I recall right). While the F-22 is the better plane, and I think it was wrong to cut it, the F-35 is more than capable of conducting most of the same missions the F-22 was going to carry out.

So while yes, we cut the F-22 program, the F-35 remains going strong, and while the merits of that can be debated, ultimately it does not mean we are immediately "less safe" because the program was ended. We still have 187 of them and currently (but not for long) there is no peer competitor for them.

Another example was the SM3-Block IIA missile that I mentioned earlier. While Obama ended the GMD deployment to Poland, once the SM3-Block IIA is deployed (in theory according to his announced plan at least) to mobile sites in Europe, we will be far better off to defend against a potential (say Iranian) missile attack, against both Europe and the United States.

and how come the news isn't reporting it?

I don't know.

 

[Pandora]

Well, that is a very broad question, and also somewhat misleading. For example, the F-22 program was ended, but we are still rolling out something like 2000 F-35's (if I recall right). While the F-22 is the better plane, and I think it was wrong to cut it, the F-35 is more than capable of conducting most of the same missions the F-22 was going to carry out.

So while yes, we cut the F-22 program, the F-35 remains going strong, and while the merits of that can be debated, ultimately it does not mean we are immediately "less safe" because the program was ended. We still have 187 of them and currently (but not for long) there is no peer competitor for them.

Another example was the SM3-Block IIA missile that I mentioned earlier. While Obama ended the GMD deployment to Poland, once the SM3-Block IIA is deployed (in theory according to his announced plan at least) to mobile sites in Europe, we will be far better off to defend against a potential (say Iranian) missile attack, against both Europe and the United States.



I don't know.

Thank you Rob,
I do really feel allot better.

OK PLC1....I guess we are making enough weapons to make me feel safe, though I admit I wish we were making bigger better stronger faster stuff than this, at least we are making something !