By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Russia threatens to nuke poland

Words Of Wisdom on 15 August 2008
stof said:

That's what I was saying with the second bolded part. The best defence against nuclear arms is nuclear arms. And the best offence against a nation with nuclear arms is to develop protection from nuclear arms. I was trying to say that the missile shield is just as much an offensive move as securing nuclear weapons is a defensive one. If you were a nation that saw the weapon shield as a U.S. move to tip the balance of a nuclear stalemate, why wouldn't you seek to re-establish that stalemate to defend your nation?

But is the best way to do that...

A)  Stopping defense shields from being made.

or

B)  Making some yourself.


Worst case of A, everyone dies.  Worst case of B, the shields fail and maybe some die.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 15 August 2008
stof said:
Sqrl said:

 

Because those developing countermeasures are doing it for defensive reasons. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the concept of MAD. Right now that is the best defence any nation (including the U.S.) has against being a nuclear target. Were the missile defense shield to actually work, suddenly the U.S. is free of this principle. And every country who isn't friends with the U.S. now has to look at the prospect of an enemy that can fire thousands of nuclear weapons but is itself guarded against such an attack. The logical step for those countries is to find new ways to defend themselves, both technological and strategic. This thread is in regard to a strategic defense, with Russia pointing out that countries that aid the United States in toppling this nuclear stalemate can find themselves subject to the consequences.

When it comes to Nuclear weapons, the missile shield and "rogue nations" defence and offence are inseparable. 

But unlike the US these nations are bypassing the defense rather than developing their own defense. You said it yourself above actually (see bolded).

If you're afraid of being nuked you develope a defense, if you want to use nukes you bypass nuclear defenses. 

Shouldn't the goal be MAN(Mutually Assured Non-Desctruction) not MAD?

PS - I just thought of the MAN thing, its probably been thought of before but I thought it was pretty GD appropriate.

That's what I was saying with the second bolded part. The best defence against nuclear arms is nuclear arms. And the best offence against a nation with nuclear arms is to develop protection from nuclear arms. I was trying to say that the missile shield is just as much an offensive move as securing nuclear weapons is a defensive one. If you were a nation that saw the weapon shield as a U.S. move to tip the balance of a nuclear stalemate, why wouldn't you seek to re-establish that stalemate to defend your nation?

I don't think you understood what I said or I'm really missing what you've said. 

They can reestablish that balance by developing a shield of their own rather than developing better nukes.  A position where we have MAN as opposed to MAD is infinitely preferable to me.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
rocketpig on 15 August 2008
Sqrl said:
okr said:
Sqrl said:

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.

1) I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...

2) And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.

1) Your first sentence in the post only served to declare that several posters were wrong and you failed to back it up, this is a violation of the forum rules. Period.  The end.

2) I realize you are proud of this, but this violate rules 4-4.

"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures." 

Now, I haven't even given you a warning yet but if you'd like to continue we can change that.  All I asked you to do was support your position with an argument or don't post.  You can agree with (and disagree with) whoever you like so long as you actually support it.

You suck. 

Anyway, so have we reached a conclusion yet? Should I press the big red button or not?

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Sqrl on 15 August 2008
rocketpig said:
Sqrl said:
okr said:
Sqrl said:

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.

1) I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...

2) And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.

1) Your first sentence in the post only served to declare that several posters were wrong and you failed to back it up, this is a violation of the forum rules. Period.  The end.

2) I realize you are proud of this, but this violate rules 4-4.

"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures." 

Now, I haven't even given you a warning yet but if you'd like to continue we can change that.  All I asked you to do was support your position with an argument or don't post.  You can agree with (and disagree with) whoever you like so long as you actually support it.

You suck. 

Anyway, so have we reached a conclusion yet? Should I press the big red button or not?

 

 

From you thats a compliment

And yes you should press the red button...after all you don't want to live with the regret of never knowing what it does =P
To Each Man, Responsibility
rocketpig on 15 August 2008

Damn it. Staples fucked me.



It doesn't do anything. :(




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Words Of Wisdom on 15 August 2008
rocketpig said:

You suck. 

Anyway, so have we reached a conclusion yet? Should I press the big red button or not?

Overlord Rule #9

I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labelled as such.

 



stof on 15 August 2008

because it's all the same arms race. If other nations build similar shields (not that many other nations would spend 10's if not hundreds of billions on something that doesn't seem to work yet), then it would eliminate the United State's ability to launch nuclear weapons at those targets, and the U.S. would engage in a counter measure. This is as much about the United States ability to use such weapons if it felt the need (and that is a big if) than it is about defending themselves against another nation.


And besides, almost the only scenario in which another country would launch a nuclear missile at the United States was if that nation felt it's own survival hinged upon it. The United States is not above invading other countries. If it found a way to bypass some nation's defence of nuclear arms, what's to assure those nations that the United States would not invade them? For some countries, the ability to fire nukes and have them land is seen as largely a defensive maneuver.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

okr on 15 August 2008
Sqrl said:
okr said:
Sqrl said:

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.

1) I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...

2) And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.

1) Your first sentence in the post only served to declare that several posters were wrong and you failed to back it up, this is a violation of the forum rules. Period. The end.

2) I realize you are proud of this, but this violate rules 4-4.

"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures." 

Now, I haven't even given you a warning yet but if you'd like to continue we can change that.  All I asked you to do was support your position with an argument or don't post.  You can agree with (and disagree with) whoever you like so long as you actually support it.

So I should have contributed more to this thread and back up my position but the thread starter doesn't have to? Okay, thank you, understood. I knew why I stayed out of the threads created by this guy since I once made the mistake to post in one of his numerous Obama threads until today and I will stay out of his threads again from now on.



Sqrl on 15 August 2008
stof said:
because it's all the same arms race. If other nations build similar shields (not that many other nations would spend 10's if not hundreds of billions on something that doesn't seem to work yet), then it would eliminate the United State's ability to launch nuclear weapons at those targets, and the U.S. would engage in a counter measure. This is as much about the United States ability to use such weapons if it felt the need (and that is a big if) than it is about defending themselves against another nation.

And besides, almost the only scenario in which another country would launch a nuclear missile at the United States was if that nation felt it's own survival hinged upon it. The United States is not above invading other countries. If it found a way to bypass some nation's defence of nuclear arms, what's to assure those nations that the United States would not invade them? For some countries, the ability to fire nukes and have them land is seen as largely a defensive maneuver.

Nobody is saying its a separate arms race, we are saying that certain stopping points are preferable to others.  A defensive balance with a MAN ideology as the deterrent is preferable to having the MAD ideology as a deterrent. I assume you agree with that much?

If that is the case then we should move towards that position.  Once the world reaches that point anyone(even the US) who develops countermeasures would be escalating the arms race. 

I understand that you are arguing the point that its all the same and that each development is no better or worse than any other. But if you agree with the first paragraph (and I really hope you do) then you recognize that it isn't all the same.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Kasz216 on 15 August 2008
stof said:
Kasz216 said:

I disagree somewhat... during Vietnam the US was really close to trying to nuke the crap out of everything russian and chinese. I'd almost gurantee the russians were really close to doing the same at some point.

Mutually assured destruction while prevents a lot of it... also leads to "Well if we nuke just about everything they have, REALLY fast we might just be ok."

Hence why missle defense systems are needed. Also, to the person who said it above. No the US would not Nuke Canada if Russia put nuclear defense missles there. That's just stupid.

for the first bolded point - part of why it works is because that pretty much can't happen. Both Russia and the U.S. desperately tried, but even under their best scenarios, there was just no way to eradicate an entire country without them being able to do the same.

 

As for the second bolded point - no, but they almost nuked Russia over missiles in Cuba, which was a direct response to U.S. missiles in East Europe. Why did it not actually happen? mostly because of my response to the first bolded point.

 


I dunno the McArthur plan seemed pretty capable of doing it. It's just the the plan was batshit crazy and would of killed way too many people.

Also countries like poland just don't have nuclear weapons so MAD doesn't work for them. If russia nukes poland or some other nation without nukes, the US isn't going to step up and Nuke russia back. The non-response to georiga is a clear sign of that. Hence these deals NEED to exist to save the smaller countries.

MAD only protects large countries. Missle shields protect them all.

Even if a country like Poland or Gerogia did get nukes, they COULD be wiped out by nukes before a counterstrike.

Not only that but Missle shields protect Poland from non nuclear attacks. 

If Georgia had a missle shield inside of it.. you can bet Russia's attack of georgia and the US response would of been different.  Russia wouldn't of dared to bomb the cities the missles or radars were in, for fear of US reprisal.