Translation

[Pete at Home]

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

Isn't that kind of like taking more LSD until such time as the rest of the world becomes rational?

[TheDeamon]

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

Isn't that kind of like taking more LSD until such time as the rest of the world becomes rational?

Maybe he trying to take too much LDS instead?

...If only.

[Seriati]

Isn't that kind of like taking more LSD until such time as the rest of the world becomes rational?

Not really.  More like believing the police should have the same or better fire power as the criminals you expect them to deal with (which means traffic cops don't need machine guns, but drug task forces may), or how it's rationale for a citizen to be armed if the criminals will be.  Granted the US in not the world's police, but it is still the government that is responsible to be "the police" available to protect us as citizens.

[Pete at Home]

Gadzooks, Seriati. I thought the equivalence of small arms to wmds was a leftwit straw man.  Having bigger nukes only deters th a sane who love their children, and the world is running out of those.

[Seriati]

Well Pete, if you know a way to end nuclear proliferation and unwind the clock we'd take it (including ditching our own weapons), but in the absence of such an ability I don't find your complaint to have merit.  Having nukes deters even the irrational in many cases.

[D.W.]

Dump all warheads.  Retrofit with passenger caps and small arms.  Launch in retaliation, parachute into enemy territory and take over.  After all, home is glowing in the dark by the time you touch down... 

Low Earth Orbit invasion force!

[Pete at Home]

Well Pete, if you know a way to end nuclear proliferation and unwind the clock we'd take it (including ditching our own weapons), but in the absence of such an ability I don't find your complaint to have merit.  Having nukes deters even the irrational in many cases.

Holy flaming straw men, Batman. I never said ditch our nukes. I simply said we don't need to dramatically increase the number when we already have enough to destroy every city of our potential enemies.  I'm not for unwinding the clock. I'm saying I don't see the point of returning to a nuclear arms race.

[Seriati]

Could you reread your posts then?  Because if your rationale is that we already have enough to wipe out the world, does it make a difference if we have more?  There's no moral argument that says 1X enough is okay and 2x is bad.  Is it just too expensive?  What's the fundamental basis of your complaint?

Honestly, our arsenal is dated, we should be engaged in a "race" to have the weapons that are most effective and acknowledged to be the most effective.  But I honestly can't get worked up about an argument that its okay to be able to destroy the world twice over, but four times is cray cray.

[Pete at Home]

Could you reread your posts then?  Because if your rationale is that we already have enough to wipe out the world, does it make a difference if we have more? 

Yes, obviously. Don't you know what those little bastards cost to make and upkeep?  Do you remember how the USSR failed?  Or did Pyr convert you to his vision of an infinite money supply at the government's say so?  Do you not believe that a dollar spent on bigger better nukes is a dollar not taxed, or a dollar not spent on something else?

Honestly, our arsenal is dated, we should be engaged in a "race" to have the weapons that are most effective and acknowledged to be the most effective. 

I don't know what you mean, but it sounds like you've got some reasonable argument. Please dish.  I'll be happy to concede if I'm wrong on the facts.

[Pete at Home]

But I honestly can't get worked up about an argument that its okay to be able to destroy the world twice over, but four times is cray cray
 

Indeed.  But what I said is that it's Cray Cray to say we need to be able to destroy it four times over, for proper deterrence, while building a wall, replacing Obamacare, and fixing infrastructure and all those other problems that Trump addressed in the Inauguration.  Additional nuclear destructive capacity should not be a priority in our economic state. See USSR circa 1986.

[Pete at Home]

we should be engaged in a "race" to have the weapons that are most effective and acknowledged to be the most effective.

Why?  Even Reagan was ok with being second best to the USSR. We're still way ahead of China. Why do we suddenly need to out-nuke Russia?

[Gaoics79]

Not really.  More like believing the police should have the same or better fire power as the criminals you expect them to deal with (which means traffic cops don't need machine guns, but drug task forces may), or how it's rationale for a citizen to be armed if the criminals will be.

The analogy breaks down when you consider that using such weapons, even in a defensive or retaliatory fashion, would be a crime against humanity and an act of unambiguous lunacy.

As far as I am concerned, nukes are sui generis and have no analogy in terms of conventional notions of a country's right to self-defence.

The fact that the world nearly ended by *accident* on at least one occasion leads me to the conclusion that any policy vis a vis nukes that is not aimed expressly at banishing them off the face of the earth is for fools and lunatics.

[Pete at Home]

Not really.  More like believing the police should have the same or better fire power as the criminals you expect them to deal with (which means traffic cops don't need machine guns, but drug task forces may), or how it's rationale for a citizen to be armed if the criminals will be.

The analogy breaks down when you consider that using such weapons, even in a defensive or retaliatory fashion, would be a crime against humanity and an act of unambiguous lunacy.

As far as I am concerned, nukes are sui generis and have no analogy in terms of conventional notions of a country's right to self-defence.

The fact that the world nearly ended by *accident* on at least one occasion leads me to the conclusion that any policy vis a vis nukes that is not aimed expressly at banishing them off the face of the earth is for fools and lunatics.

Liked except for the last paragraph, which I don't think is presently possible, and in absence of such a possibility, better to maintain status quo for now.  Also, multi megaton nukes may end up earth's salvation against an oncoming asteroid some day.

Agreed that nukes are sui generis, although they share many of the same characteristics as biological warfare -- to which I would presently apply the reasoning in Jason's third paragraph.

[Gaoics79]

Pete I will concede that there are scenarios where disarmament could make things worse by encouraging bad actors to use nukes on the premise that they could get away with it.

Yet I stand by my statement which is that the end goal, the only rational end goal, must be the ultimate elimination of these evil weapons. However we get to that goal, that's the only prize that matters.

Those who suggest that we must be satisfied with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over our heads in perpetuity, are buying into a type of rational lunacy. If one of those nukes Trump wants to build to make America more secure, accidentally goes off or gets launched and triggers a global apocalypse ending human civilizations as we know it, what's our posthumous apology going to be to those who inherit our ruined world? What rational argument are we going to make to justify ourselves?  WHOOOOPS.

And incidentally, I don't see nukes as any better than biological weapons. I see them as far far worse. If somebody invents Captain Tripps and 90% of the human population perishes, at least the survivors would not be inheriting an irradiated ruined world.

[Pete at Home]

Iirc, king's fictional Capitain Trips took out 99% of humans, dogs, and horses, all from one accidental peacetime leak.  No one nuke would ruin the whole world.  An exchange of proliferated bioweapons would take out heaven knows how many species.

[TheDeamon]

Honestly, our arsenal is dated, we should be engaged in a "race" to have the weapons that are most effective and acknowledged to be the most effective. 

I don't know what you mean, but it sounds like you've got some reasonable argument. Please dish.  I'll be happy to concede if I'm wrong on the facts.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

Our ICBM's seem to be "state of the art" 1970's style. They even regressed the warheads over the past 20 years, from being MIRV's into being Single Shots.

They did have to go through and replace the (solid) rocket (fuel) motors among other things "recently" though, as their initial design life ended some 15 years ago.

[Pete at Home]

Honestly, our arsenal is dated, we should be engaged in a "race" to have the weapons that are most effective and acknowledged to be the most effective. 

I don't know what you mean, but it sounds like you've got some reasonable argument. Please dish.  I'll be happy to concede if I'm wrong on the facts.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

Our ICBM's seem to be "state of the art" 1970's style.

Harder to hack, neh?

They even regressed the warheads over the past 20 years, from being MIRV's into being Single Shots.

What's the strategic purpose of a MIRV?  Do you really think that's a capability worth preserving?

They did have to go through and replace the (solid) rocket (fuel) motors among other things "recently" though, as their initial design life ended some 15 years ago.

Which you think should be replaced by what?  Reusable vehicles, like the Space Shuttle?

[D.W.]

I REALLY hope those scientist guys find a way to use our nukes for mining or transporting the ridiculous amount of wealth in the belts. 

Barring that or extraterrestrial invasion... I see no way we ever solve our nuclear arms problem... you know, without all the death and fire and fallout.

While my proposal was ridiculous in execution, I wasn't joking when I suggested NOT retaliating.  If anyone survives, you want somewhere to go after.

And thanks Seriati for reminding me there are still people out there who don't believe we can wage nuclear war quite efficiently enough and the race isn't over.  The only nuclear race is one of containment.  A race the world is losing I would point out.

[TheDeamon]

I REALLY hope those scientist guys find a way to use our nukes for mining or transporting the ridiculous amount of wealth in the belts. 

Barring that or extraterrestrial invasion... I see no way we ever solve our nuclear arms problem... you know, without all the death and fire and fallout.

Well, in that context, our current nuke Arsenal isn't up to the task of attacking aliens or space rocks unless they're near our atmosphere at present IIRC. In fact, I think it remains something of an unknown if they actually are capable of targeting something in space. At least officially, since having such a capability would likely be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

[D.W.]

For the rock busting / locomotion, I assumed we'd bring them out there THEN detonate them. 

For alien busting... well that's just a setup for false hope in the movies...

[Gaoics79]

No one nuke would ruin the whole world.  An exchange of proliferated bioweapons would take out heaven knows how many species.

For clarification the nightmare world ending scenario isn't a single nuke accidentally going off. It's an ICBM inadvertently launching at a Russian or Chinese target, or an early warning system glitching out (as happened to Russia in the cold war) and a massive nuclear retaliatiin being triggered. Because the ability to strike back is eroded if you wait for the initial assault, there are no doubt contingency plans that would automatically trigger global nuclear war with even a small initial mistake. It is basically turnkey armageddon. And we're sitting on this powder keg as we speak.