MAD not so bad

[metamars]

Mutual Assured Destruction not so bad. From

A Major War: Not Just Rumors (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=719):

by Srdja Trifkovic


The crisis in relations between the United States and Russia over Georgia heralds a particularly dangerous period in world affairs: the era of asymmetrical multipolarity. A major war between two or more major powers is more likely in this configuration than in any other model of global balance known to history.

The most stable system is bipolarity based on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which was prevalent from the 1950s until the end of the Cold War. The awareness of both superpowers that they would inflict severe and unavoidable reciprocal damage on each other or their allies in a nuclear war was coupled with the acceptance that each had a sphere of dominance or vital interest that should not be infringed upon.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yup.

The Pax Romana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana) wasn't much of a peace, what with the crucifixions and oppression and all...

but it WAS a peace.

[Beerina]

Admit Georgia to NATO, along with all other former republics who want to join, end of problem.


Europe's been down the road of appeasement before. It never ends very well.

[metamars]

Admit Georgia to NATO, along with all other former republics who want to join, end of problem.


Europe's been down the road of appeasement before. It never ends very well.

I see. Let's suppose that Russia puts missiles back in Cuba, which they say are merely defensive. If the US threatened Cuba and Russia about said missiles, you would urge Cuba and Russia not to appease the US, by knuckling under and removing them. Right?

BTW, I doubt that admitting Georgia into NATO would be the end of the problem. It would probably result in armed confrontation, ending with humiliation by the US (if we're lucky). Or mutual destruction, if things escalated to a large scale nuclear exchange.

As Trifkovic has said (more or less), the Russians are perceiving an existential threat (rightly or wrongly), and so they will act accordingly.

[WildCat]

I see. Let's suppose that Russia puts missiles back in Cuba, which they say are merely defensive.
What kind of missiles?

[metamars]

What kind of missiles?

That's for Russia (and maybe Cuba) to know, and for us to find out. It'd also be our task to find out how easy or hard it would be to quickly change a warhead from non-nuclear to nuclear, and/or re-target a missile to travel to Florida and explode over a city, there. By way of comparison, it's 90 miles from Cuba to the US, but the Russian S300 missile has a range of 95 miles.

A single missile might create far more economic chaos if it's used to detonate an EMP device.

[Tailgater]

I wouldn't be worried about the economy if any nuclear device went off. It's going to hell anyway if that happens.

[metamars]

I wouldn't be worried about the economy if any nuclear device went off. It's going to hell anyway if that happens.

If you consider an intact United States to be essential for victory in any confrontation, and a nuclear 'game' to involve gradual escalation until both sides realize that it's better and smarter to play nice, you can ask the question of the aftereffects of a single nuclear detonation in the US.

If a city gets fried, the economic fallout, nationwide, might not amount to more than a recession. However, if the whole Southeast US loses the functioning of it's computers for, say, 5 months, I think this would be far worse, economically. Meanwhile, the realization that the next nuclear warhead will, in fact, be directed to kills millions of people will help at least the saner amongst us focus. Some of the most focused thinking will occur amongst citizens of the Florida cities nearest to Cuba.

Not that I'm a lover of the Democrat Party, but Regan Republican Paul Craig Roberts has some advice for US citizens, that's relevant: (http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/are-you-ready-for-nuclear-war.html)

If you desire to be poor, oppressed and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.

Since Obama is being advised by Russo-phobe Brzezinski, the guy that destabilized Afghanistan and helped create Al Quaeda, take with a grain of salt.

[WildCat]

That's for Russia (and maybe Cuba) to know, and for us to find out. It'd also be our task to find out how easy or hard it would be to quickly change a warhead from non-nuclear to nuclear, and/or re-target a missile to travel to Florida and explode over a city, there. By way of comparison, it's 90 miles from Cuba to the US, but the Russian S300 missile has a range of 95 miles.
Why do you have such a hard time answering a simple question? Would you like to try again: What kind of missile?

A single missile might create far more economic chaos if it's used to detonate an EMP device.
Like the one used on 9/11? :rolleyes:

[Policenaut]

So missiles of an undisclosed nature 60 miles off the US coast is the same thing as a fully disclosed missile DEFENSE system that would not affect Russia at all that Russia was asked to be involved in. I see. Next we'll see how nuclear weapons are the same as a ham sandwich.

Also if a nuke goes off just about anywhere every market in the world will plummet. It will be a ********* of epic proportions.

[Policenaut]

So missiles of an undisclosed nature 60 miles off the US coast is the same thing as a fully disclosed missile DEFENSE system that would not affect Russia at all that Russia was asked to be involved in. I see. Next we'll see how nuclear weapons are the same as a ham sandwich.

Also if a nuke goes off just about anywhere every market in the world will plummet. It will be a disaster of epic proportions any way you look at it.

[metamars]

Why do you have such a hard time answering a simple question? Would you like to try again: What kind of missile?

For military purposes, the exact identity of the missile doesn't matter, as long as it can reach the US, and carry a nuclear warhead. Even a tactical nuclear one.

For purposes of increasing the tension, and helping focus the minds of both US elites and the US public, the 'missiles' don't even need to fly! As long as the US doesn't know that, for sure, that is all that is necessary.

[metamars]

So missiles of an undisclosed nature 60 miles off the US coast is the same thing as a fully disclosed missile DEFENSE system that would not affect Russia at all that Russia was asked to be involved in. I see. Next we'll see how nuclear weapons are the same as a ham sandwich.

Also if a nuke goes off just about anywhere every market in the world will plummet. It will be a ********* of epic proportions.

The Russians have been complaining of "humanitarian" aid being delivered to Georgia, courtesy of US warships. They've said that they believe that weapons are being sent, also.

Even if the US let them look at all the crates as they were unloaded, how would the Russians know what is inside those crates? Let me give you a hint: Sometimes governments lie.

Hopefully, you will not miss the point of this question....

[WildCat]

For military purposes, the exact identity of the missile doesn't matter, as long as it can reach the US, and carry a nuclear warhead. Even a tactical nuclear one.
Are you saying that ABMs in Poland are the equivalent of actual nuclear missiles in Cuba?

[WildCat]

The Russians have been complaining of "humanitarian" aid being delivered to Georgia, courtesy of US warships. They've said that they believe that weapons are being sent, also.

Even if the US let them look at all the crates as they were unloaded, how would the Russians know what is inside those crates? Let me give you a hint: Sometimes governments lie.

Hopefully, you will not miss the point of this question....
Is the point we should blockade Cuba because of all the Russian ships that routinely dock at Cuban ports? :confused:

[theprestige]

To be sure, a working missile defense system neutralizes your enemy's "second strike" capability.

And it is this second strike capability that deters you from making the first strike: The certain knowledge that no matter how successful your attack is, your enemy's counterattack will be equally successful, and you will both lose.

Thus, as long as your enemy's second strike capability is preserved, truly it is said, "the only way to win is not to play".

But a working missile defense system negates all of that. With your enemy's second strike capability out of comission, you can attack with impunity at any time. Suddenly, you have a game you can play, and win, and that your enemy can lose whether they wish to play or not.

The missile defense system in Poland doesn't need nuclear warheads. Those warheads are already armed and ready in the American Midwest. What the system in Poland represents is a piece of a growing missile defense infrastructure that will ultimately enable the US to compel its enemies with the threat of nuclear attack, even if those enemies have nuclear weapons of their own.

Perhaps more realistically (since I don't actually believe the US is going to threaten anybody with nukes anytime soon), a working missile defense system means that Russia can't use the threat of nuclear retaliation to keep NATO off its back while it has its way with its defenseless neighbors.

[Policenaut]

But the *********** defense system isn't aimed at Russia and even if it was it would do diddly squat to a Russian all out missile attack.

[WildCat]

But a working missile defense system negates all of that. With your enemy's second strike capability out of comission, you can attack with impunity at any time. Suddenly, you have a game you can play, and win, and that your enemy can lose whether they wish to play or not.

The missile defense system in Poland doesn't need nuclear warheads. Those warheads are already armed and ready in the American Midwest. What the system in Poland represents is a piece of a growing missile defense infrastructure that will ultimately enable the US to compel its enemies with the threat of nuclear attack, even if those enemies have nuclear weapons of their own.
The problem with that argument is that Poland is not the place to intercept an ICBM headed towards the US from Russia.

[Darth Rotor]

Wildcat, you aren't dealing with rational people, you are dealing with a couple of fear mongers. The allusion to PCR ought to be a dead giveaway. His rhetoric is sadly alarmist, for all that he now and again puts his finger on a policy point or two.

To some fools, all missiles are the same. To those who know better, they respond with fingers in ears and lalalalalala.

Willful stupidity is, and has for some time, been encouraged at the JREF forums.

Sad but true, and a disappointing undermining of Mr Randi's guiding principles.

DR

[theprestige]

The problem with that argument is that Poland is not the place to intercept an ICBM headed towards the US from Russia.
No, but it's a great place to intercept an MRBM headed towards Europe from Russia. It thus reduces Russia's ability to cow European nations from interfering in Russian affairs.

[egslim]

Admit Georgia to NATO, along with all other former republics who want to join, end of problem.
You've stated that before, and it's still bollocks.

NATO membership only functions as an effective deterrent if people actually believe the other members will come to the defense of the member they want to attack.

None of the NATO members cares enough about Georgia to fight Russia, and the Russians know it. Admitting Georgia into NATO would be a bluff the Russians see straight through.