North Korea Crisis

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Solace

Well, there's two things to take from that video. One is that in terms of nuclear and overall military might, the US is off the charts compared to any other nation. Combined with a civilian population that has more guns in circulation than nearly any other nation, and the message is simple: provoking the US into an armed conflict is the epitome of stupid.

The Soviet/Russian stockpile actually beats the US...that vid just shows that the Americans test more. These days, the focus is on missile rather than nuclear testing since both sides have already well established how to make the bombs

Not that it matters in a nuclear war though.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

The Soviet/Russian stockpile actually beats the US...that vid just shows that the Americans test more. These days, the focus is on missile rather than nuclear testing since both sides have already well established how to make the bombs

Not that it matters in a nuclear war though.

True, true. No matter how you slice it, there's enough nukes on the planet to wipe out most of our civilization and make most of the earth unusable for life. All the more important to keep a sharp eye on those who are quick to rush into conflict.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Solace

True, true. No matter how you slice it, there's enough nukes on the planet to wipe out most of our civilization and make most of the earth unusable for life. All the more important to keep a sharp eye on those who are quick to rush into conflict.

I like nukes. They promote peace

It is the great equalizer between superpowers and nonsuperpowers. It should an UN agenda to allocate 10 ICBMs to every country in the world.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I like nukes. They promote peace

More like they promote strained tension and anti-"them" propoganda.

[Ithekro]

"A war with no battles, no monuments... only casualties."
~Captain Ramius (Hunt for Red October)

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by GDB

More like they promote strained tension and anti-"them" propoganda.

Have you ever noticed the people who claim nuclear weapons increase tensions are the ones who usually HAVE nuclear weapons?

If everyone have nuclear weapons, peace will suddenly all break out. Because the more powerful nations (who are prune to wars) would suddenly become a lot more polite and not declare war at a drop of a hat.

I mean, if Saddam actually had live launchers ready to go, do you think U.S of A would dare to march on Baghdad?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I mean, if Saddam actually had live launchers ready to go, do you think U.S of A would dare to march on Baghdad?

That explains why Saddam didn't use the chemical weapons he had on standby during the first Gulf War when Bush sent a secret letter threatening nuclear retaliation if WMDs are used.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I mean, if Saddam actually had live launchers ready to go, do you think U.S of A would dare to march on Baghdad?

Probability of survival over a 100 years < 1%

[Ithekro]

Have you ever noticed the people who claim nuclear weapons increase tensions are the ones who usually HAVE nuclear weapons?

Maybe you didn't notice the massive tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted for 40 years after the Soviets got nuclear weapons. And the few times it nearly resulted in World War III? Compound that with the addition of China, UK, and France to the mix during that time, and you got people in the late 1970s and early 1980s believing the planet would be a nuclear wasteland by 1987.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Have you ever noticed the people who claim nuclear weapons increase tensions are the ones who usually HAVE nuclear weapons?

Depends on what your perspective is. If you believe only your nation should have them, then yeah, that's not very morally honest. If you believe no one should have them, including your own nation, I don't see the problem with that sentiment at all.

For the record, I pretty much understand why a nation like Iran wants nukes. They do want that equalizer. I don't like the idea of it, but I can understand it, definitely. The problem lies when you look at an unstable nation like North Korea and you realize just how dangerous the very existence of nukes is. Nations are bound to go through cycles of instability. I sure as hell wouldn't like to see an unstable nation with nukes... Even if there is no real tactical benefit to a nuclear war, I don't think a nation with unstable leadership, on the edge, is always a rational actor... We've seen this before in history...

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Each Dark Age has had other nations not particularly effected by the collapse of an empire...just they were too far away to really do anything (or particularly care) what happened in that empire. Civilizations in China, India, and the Americas went on when Rome fell and Europe fell into the Dark Ages. I'm not even certain they even noticed in China.

It used to be greater regions that were affected (though one can argue that in some cases, such as Bronze Age Collapse/Warring State period and collapse of Han and Rome, you can see some connection across the Eurasian supercontinent, even if the timing doesn't completely line up). These regions rose and fell in tandem due to their interconnectedness. The whole world is interconnected now, so I fear that no nation would be spared hardship if a modern dark age occurred.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

That explains why Saddam didn't use the chemical weapons he had on standby during the first Gulf War when Bush sent a secret letter threatening nuclear retaliation if WMDs are used.

Chemical weapons can be easily countered.

Thermonuclear weapons on other hand would turned entire armies into charred rock.

If Saddam knew his defeat would had been his life, he would had launched everything he got.

Also, let me draw you another picture, if Saddam had 10 ICBMs really to go to reach NYC, do you think Bush would dared so easily launch G1 and G2?

As China has shown, you don't need 5,000 missiles to play the nuclear saber rattle game. Just enough to let the other guy to be ready to lose 5-6 heavily populated cities.

So in the end, Saddam really didn't have enough damage to qualify for MAD.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I like nukes. They promote peace

It is the great equalizer between superpowers and nonsuperpowers. It should an UN agenda to allocate 10 ICBMs to every country in the world.

Nobody benefits in a Mexican standoff.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Maybe you didn't notice the massive tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted for 40 years after the Soviets got nuclear weapons. And the few times it nearly resulted in World War III? Compound that with the addition of China, UK, and France to the mix during that time, and you got people in the late 1970s and early 1980s believing the planet would be a nuclear wasteland by 1987.

Ah....have you ever wondered what the did the Soviets think when it didn't have nukes but the Americans did? I mean, do you think they are like "Ah, the Americans are the good guys, they would never do bad things with a powerful missile like that."

Similarly, I bet the Iranian leadership didn't think stuff like "America and Israel are nice guys, it is not like they didn't overthrown our government at least once and start a monster war that cost us a 1,000,000 people"

When the first A-Bomb blew up Japan, it set of the next big "thing" in warfare. A few nukes can easily counter a army far larger of its size.

But the THREAT of the nuclear bomb brought us a lot of peace.

The Soviets could had marched over Western Europe if America didn't have nukes.

General McArthur would had marched into China if not for the threat of Soviet atomic weapons (Yes, we know Soviets at that time didn't have mad capabilities, but at that time no one knew)

The kind of of "World War" level of destruction never happened again since WWII, and one large reason for it was nukes evened the playing fields for everyone.

Therefore, nukes are good for peace, because it deter aggressors....a scary kind of peace, but peace.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Nobody benefits in a Mexican standoff.

Oh, I don't think so. The ARMED guys do. The UNARMED guys don't.

How did Churchill put it? "Those who convert swords into plowshares will always be slaves of those who don't"

Replace "Swords" and "nuclear weapons" and suddenly you have the 21st century world.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

As China has shown

As China has shown, the best deterrent to any sort of actual conflict is to embed yourself so deeply in the economy that hurting you hurts the world. Seriously, you're deluding yourself.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Oh, I don't think so. The ARMED guys do. The UNARMED guys don't.

It's not a Mexican Standoff if someone isn't armed.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by GDB

As China has shown, the best deterrent to any sort of actual conflict is to embed yourself so deeply in the economy that hurting you hurts the world. Seriously, you're deluding yourself.

You are the one who is delusional.

China start its weapon program in the late 50s, after Ike threaten China with nuclear attack if China don't actively end the Korean War. Mao at that point realized the "power of the soldiers" wouldn't be able to counter a nuclear attack.

After that, Mao realized he need a nuke or two--Not enough to match the Americans, but enough to "Saber rattle."

China did not reach "Embedded world economy" status until the 1990s, it didn't even have "open" the country until the 1980s. Before then, it had to content with a hostile US and a hostile USSR.

Especially in the 1950-70s, it was a "closed state" a la North Korea today, with a threat on the western front (CIA sponsored Tibet, India, and USSR) and a threat on the Eastern front (Taiwan actively armed by US), having nuclear weaponry went a long way from being invaded.

It's not a Mexican Standoff if someone isn't armed.

Funny quote, I bet the unarmed guy must feel really safe next to the guy who IS Armed.

Are you one of those east coast liberals who want to shred the second amendment too?

[Ithekro]

Actually, if Saddam had 10 ICBM they would have been targeted first, then the country invaded. Because the UN forces would have had enough air power (and missiles of their own) to take care of that first thing in 1991, and given how things were going between that and 2003, if another had popped up, it would have been attacked immediately given the way the governments were talking at the time, and the excuse given for the invasion n 2003.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Funny quote, I bet the unarmed guy must feel really safe next to the guy who IS Armed.

Again, if he's unarmed, it isn't a Mexican Standoff. Learn your phrases.

Are you one of those east coast liberals who want to shred the second amendment too?

Why does it not surprise me that you toss around terms like "east coast liberal" and think they want to "shred the second amendment", yet praise nukes as amazing tools of peace?

[Ithekro]

Some would say the best defense is a good offense. While that is almost true in nuclear war, it isn't entirely accurate. In Nuclear War the best defense is that there is no defense. That was what mutually assured destruction was about. No defense. Nothing could stop it if it started.

At least that was what it use to be. Sometime in the late 1970s and 1980s the Americans (and probably the Soviets too) said "to hell with that" and started developing ways to intercept nuclear missiles. Remember Reagan's "Star Wars" project? The Missile Defense Systems have changed the game a little.

Now the best offense is a good defense. Because if you can stop their attacks and they can't stop yours, you win. The other side finds such systems to be highly offensive.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Actually, if Saddam had 10 ICBM they would have been targeted first, then the country invaded. Because the UN forces would have had enough air power (and missiles of their own) to take care of that first thing in 1991, and given how things were going between that and 2003, if another had popped up, it would have been attacked immediately given the way the governments were talking at the time, and the excuse given for the invasion n 2003.

Actually no, the 1991 Tech was a lot more different than today's tech, a lot of the missiles Saddam aimed at Israel actually got through. If Saddam had them on Mobile launchers with his skuds America would had think twice to pick a fight with him. Air attack is a tricky thing.

The invasion for 2003 happened exactly because Saddam had no nukes, otherwise, why isn't U.S (or UN as you prefer) marching in Pakistan or North Korea right now? Because they Got Da Bomb. No American president is willing to sign off the risk of 100,000 service men in coffins because the other guy got 1 bomb off.

Yes, he might lose his country after, but if the guy is as crazy as western Media portray him....

Why does it not surprise me that you toss around terms like "east coast liberal" and think they want to "shred the second amendment", yet praise nukes as amazing tools of peace?

Having Nukes is like having guns.

You have a gun, Robbers/murders/rapist less like to rob you.

You have a nuke, more powerful countries are less likely to invade you. And, as a small country, I doubt you want to pick a fight with the larger one too.

Therefore more guns in houses = more peace in the neighborhood....everyone understand you walk into someone's house, you better be in your best manners and no funny stuff.

More nukes in every country's hands = more peace for the world....everyone understand if someone come to your country, he come with a VISA...not a tank division.