Thread: Likely Reaction to Rogue State Nuclear Strike

Originally Posted by vsdoc

The real irony here is that someone from the land of Alexander is advising someone from the land of Buddha and Gandhi on how to bring about world peace through disarmament.

Next you'll be teaching us about the cures for syphilis.

Bah, you got offended? Sorry, I meant it wholeheartly.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Bah, you got offended? Sorry, I meant it wholeheartly.

So did I actually. Seeing as it was my ancestors invaded by yours.

My ancestors were invaded so many times in the past I'll probably forget someone.

Here goes the list: Romans, Byzantine, Turks, Austrians, Germans, Serbs, English, French, even Italians had their foot set here. And that's after Alexander.

My point was China and India represent cradle of wisdom to me. With so many great thinkers in the past on the both sides and so much wisdom accumulated in your neck of the woods it's strange to me you are enemies to each other.

And I also meant it 1/2 of world population lays in 2 of your countries, sure if you manage to work together you can move a lot of things in the world. Especially with the rising economic power you both have.

Originally Posted by Doktor

My ancestors were invaded so many times in the past I'll probably forget someone.

Here goes the list: Romans, Byzantine, Turks, Austrians, Germans, Serbs, English, French, even Italians had their foot set here. And that's after Alexander.

My point was China and India represent cradle of wisdom to me. With so many great thinkers in the past on the both sides and so much wisdom accumulated in your neck of the woods it's strange to me you are enemies to each other.

And I also meant it 1/2 of world population lays in 2 of your countries, sure if you manage to work together you can move a lot of things in the world. Especially with the rising economic power you both have.

I appreciate your words and I have replied to your original question in my reply above to Zinja. Please also realize that both of you are stretching the argument to include conventional forces. I specifically have kept my arguments centered around nuclear weapons. And have said as much in an earlier post of mine. Nuclear weapons provide shortcuts. The balance which they bring about is highly volatile and conducive to a vicious cycle of proliferation. Nuclear weapons and MAD stand-offs have allowed a new form of evil and danger to prosper and endanger world peace. A kind of war even the superpowers are not ready for - nor able to conclusively win. We made a mistake in 1945. It is time we reverse it completely as the master species and keepers of this planet. We owe the rest of the species at least that much.

You are focused on nuclear weapons.

I put conventional weapons on the table on purpose.
What's the point of not having nukes once you had them? And why get rid from nukes only, the other weapons don't kill?

Originally Posted by Doktor

You are focused on nuclear weapons.

I put conventional weapons on the table on purpose.
What's the point of not having nukes once you had them? And why get rid from nukes only, the other weapons don't kill?

I've answered you in posts earlier:

"Once we have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction, we are left with conventional weapons powers. With essentially the same checks and balances and power-block dynamic equations - just a whole lot less lethal. The idea is not to get war off the table. The idea is to get global annihilation of all species in an instant off the table. I am not an idealist to believe that war will ever be a thing of the past or that peace can be all pervasive. But if we can take a step back as a race to a level where we can defend what we have, and mind our own business for the most part without trying to police the rest of the world, then I believe that the world would be a safer place to live in."

and

"Nuclear weapons provide shortcuts. The balance which they bring about is highly volatile and conducive to a vicious cycle of proliferation. Nuclear weapons and MAD stand-offs have allowed a new form of evil and danger to prosper and endanger world peace. A kind of war even the superpowers are not ready for - nor able to conclusively win."

I am not saying that conventional weapons or wars do not kill. But I would argue your thought process of implying the impossibility of why not go the whole hog as a reason for not getting rid of the nukes first.

I figured what was confusing me so far.

Here it is. You propose non-nuclear world, which is great. Let's suppose we as a humankind fixed it, there are no more nukes.

If we don't have the nuclear annihilation as perspective what are your thoughts? Will we settle and become less violent? Or we will have another Great war? It's been a while since the last one

I think the 'abandonment' of the bio-chem weapons should be kept in mind when such enthusiastic ideas come to our minds.

Finally, if you let me illustrate your idea:
It's like giving up the Rifle while keeping 5 guns.

You forgot one thing.How do we stop the aliens without nukes?

Gents,I'm not an expert on nukes and I'm not planning on taking out a nuclear power.But in the end they don't guarantee peace,not even for nuclear powers.The only thing they guarantee is no annihilation by conventional military means.As such they're the last ditch defense(if the opponent doesn't find a way to take them out in a conventional or nuclear preventive strike) .In itself this a big deal.But annihilation can come in many shapes and sizes and defeat even more so.
Talks of prevention of war are a waste of perfectly good air.

Talks of nuclear disarmament are also a waste of time.As long as they won't be used who cares how many they are?And if they are used on a significant scale we're screwed anyway.Calculations like ''we can't destroy the Earth 5 times,but only once '' are mere academical exercises.

Originally Posted by Mihais

You forgot one thing. How do we stop the aliens without nukes?

We will form a commission for mutual understanding with aliens, will give them 1/2 the seats and eventually they will die from boredom and frustration. Like the rest of us humans

Originally Posted by vsdoc

But have nothing yet on India, save her not signing the NPT (a right she reserves for herself) and developing and acquiring her own nuclear deterrent (again, a right she reserves for herself in response to a less than friendly nuclear neighbor).

Doc,

Request you to go through this thread - Indian Nuclear Testing. Notice the time frames and the fact that India was well in a position to explode the 1st device even before 1974. Why the delay? Infact Dr. Bhabha's entire team was literally forcing Nehru to blast-off.

Chances were India might have been at the receiving nd of a pre-emptive 1st strike. 1974 was different and provided enough catalyst, just for understanding -

* Indira and NOT Nehru.
* The InA expected the Chinese as well in 1971.
* The USS Enterprise.
* The InA contemplated a One-way mission by SFs aimed at Diego-Garcia.

The time was ripe and Indira knew that she could pull it off without any major reprisal/reprisal.

=vsdoc;817740]Lets first get these 2 superpowers to step back from war fighting to deterrence levels first. That would be the biggest and most critical bit. It is absurd to have 20-30,000 nukes and crib about others having a hundred. Reduce your stockpiles to the levels of UK and France. Then all 4 reduce them all together to China's level. Then all 5 in a graded manner leverage your conventional superiority (if needed) to coax/enforce simultaneous disarmament by the rest - including and equally by yourselves.

Doc,

You don't get the point. Okay, try it this way -
The Russian military is no more the Soviet military. They don't have any hope in hell to deter/resist an American conventional assault without the current number of nukes they have. They care a damn whether India or France has 200 or 2000. Unless they somehow acquire some kind of parity with the Yanks, they won't step down from a nuclear war-fighting posture to that of a nuclear deterrence. If they don't, then the US is surely not a dumb jackass to go strip themselves with a mighty Russian arsenal glaring at CONUS and Europe.

If these two are NOT to undress, no other nuclear power, India including, is going to let go their pants. The point remains the same - It is already too late to make this world nuclear free, the maximum one may do is make it nuclear safe.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

Two things. They are not pulling near enough. And they are puling too late.

Near enough? Too late? In 1990 US and Russia's deployed warheads were a combined total of 20,834. In 2010 the New Start treaty reduces that number a mere 3,100, a 85% reduction and thats not near enough? Thats too late? You are clutching on straws friend.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

We will downsize to Pakistan's level when China downsizes to ours. They will downsize to ours when the UK and France downsize to theirs. The UK and France will downsize to China's level when the US and Russia downsize to theirs. The US and Russia should not die waiting for someone else to downsize to their level.

Let me understand you correctly here: everyone must come to your level before they can be considered rational/acceptable. It is anathema for you to go down to Pakistan's levels but it is righteous for China, US, etc to come down to your level, is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Zinja

US and Russia's deployed warheads were a combined total of 20,834. In 2010 the New Start treaty reduces that number a mere 3,100, a 85% reduction

the 20.000 figure includes warheads for free fall bombs and SRBM
or just ICBM and SLBM ?