The world's first nuclear exchange

[Crazycowbob]

...

I see no reason why a future president couldn't announce a policy similar to that of Kennedy.

That's deffinately possible, but I'm not sure Nuclear deterrence would work as well today as in the past, the main reason being that, against the USSR, they knew that we would push the button, just as we knew they would if we attacked. This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange. I fear many countries don't believe we would ever use nuclear weapons in retaliation. After all, it's pretty clear Sadam never expected us to actually attack him directly, I'm fairly sure he thought we'd continue to wait since the rest of the world would condemn an attack.

 

[fuelair]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

 

[Merko]

This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange.

I disagree. If another entity launched a nuclear attack on the US, I'm sure the world would rally in support of the US just as it did after 9/11. However, what Bush has to realise is that if he initiates a nuclear attack, as he's been stating very clearly that he doesn't rule out, then yes, the world would come down on him and on the US almost as harshly as on any other nation initiating a nuclear attack. Let's imagine he nuked Iran, and Iran countered by some dirty chemical bomb (or, in the future, nuke) in New York. I'm sure the world wouldn't exactly praise the Irani retaliation - but the main blame would no doubt fall on the US.

 

[Crazycowbob]

I disagree. If another entity launched a nuclear attack on the US, I'm sure the world would rally in support of the US just as it did after 9/11. However, what Bush has to realise is that if he initiates a nuclear attack, as he's been stating very clearly that he doesn't rule out, then yes, the world would come down on him and on the US almost as harshly as on any other nation initiating a nuclear attack. Let's imagine he nuked Iran, and Iran countered by some dirty chemical bomb (or, in the future, nuke) in New York. I'm sure the world wouldn't exactly praise the Irani retaliation - but the main blame would no doubt fall on the US.

Eh, I am deffinately looking forward to a new administration myself. I can think of no circumstances that America (or any civilized nation for that matter) should ever use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario in today's world. We all understand how bad they are now (Deffinately moreso than we did in 1945), and it's should be safe to say any sane country in possession of them should be holding them as a last resort/deterrence. Unfortunately we know not all countries are sane, and I fear if Bush had as much power as dictators in other countries, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately the president isn't the sole decision maker in our country, and while things may seem bad now, we can rest knowing he won't be in charge forever.

To clarify things though, what kind of nuclear weapons was he suggesting? I know they were considering useing tactical nukes (bunker busters) in retaliation to 911, though that idea was turned down, and that was against purely military targets, with minimal chance of civilian casualties, even from radiation. I find it difficult to believe any other sort of nuclear weapon would even be considered for use.

For what it's worth, I supported Bush in the first election, and agreed that Saddam needed to be removed from power (though I think we rushed into that), and dealing with the Taliban went as well as could be hoped. However, the execution of the Iraqi invasion I think has been terribly implemented, especially in regards to faulty intelligence and general dishonesty to the public, and things have just been in decline for years now.

 

[Fnord]

I'm applying the "Rule Of 47" to produce a WAG of 2016.

That is, 1969 + 47 = 2016.

1969 == the year that SALT II started in Helsinki, Finland.

47 == the difference between 18 and 65.

18 == the age of majority (when most people seem to find their political voices).

65 == the age of retirement (when most people seem to surrender their political influence).

The Rule of 47 is based on the (woo-woo) idea that individuals spend most of their lives -- between the ages of 18 and 65 -- trying to act against the socio-political conditions that frightened them most as pre-adults. Once those people surrender their influence, the same conditions rise up to play bogeyman against another generation, and the cycle repeats.

For instance, 47 years after Joseph P. McCarthy's Commie Witch trials (1950 to 1954 + 47 = 1997 to 2001), a new "Bogeyman" will arise and occupy the fears of the American people. Does the name "Al-Quaida" ring a bell? Or 09-11-2001?

Yeah, me neither. May as well try to use presidential biorhythms to predict the next veto.

Woo. Pure, unadulterated woo.

2016 is still my answer, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm applying the "Rule Of 47" to produce a WAG of 2016.

That is, 1969 + 47 = 2016.

1969 == the year that SALT II started in Helsinki, Finland.

47 == the difference between 18 and 65.

18 == the age of majority (when most people seem to find their political voices).

65 == the age of retirement (when most people seem to surrender their political influence).

The Rule of 47 is based on the (woo-woo) idea that individuals spend most of their lives -- between the ages of 18 and 65 -- trying to act against the socio-political conditions that frightened them most as pre-adults. Once those people surrender their influence, the same conditions rise up to play bogeyman against another generation, and the cycle repeats.

For instance, 47 years after Joseph P. McCarthy's Commie Witch trials (1950 to 1954 + 47 = 1997 to 2001), a new "Bogeyman" will arise and occupy the fears of the American people. Does the name "Al-Quaida" ring a bell? Or 09-11-2001?

Yeah, me neither. May as well try to use presidential biorhythms to predict the next veto.

Woo. Pure, unadulterated woo.

2016 is still my answer, though.

You know too much.

Fnord.

 

[Fnord]

You know too much.

Fnord.

{"Knowledge Is Power"} + {"Might Makes Right"} = Fnord

 

[Soapy Sam]

Are the numbers dates...or times?

 

[Fnord]

Are the numbers dates...or times?

Dates.

BTW: "01.09.11" represents September 11th, 2001. This keeps in concept that the least significant digits in a counting sequence always change the most.

 

[Tony]

This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange.

That's easy to say, but I don't think it's very likely that the majority of countries in the world would side with an Islamic organization or North Korea if they happened to detonate a nuke in the USA. When you get down to it, American and Western values are more widely shared throughout the world than Islamic values or Juche/Stalinist Values.

I fear many countries don't believe we would ever use nuclear weapons in retaliation. After all, it's pretty clear Sadam never expected us to actually attack him directly, I'm fairly sure he thought we'd continue to wait since the rest of the world would condemn an attack.

Apples and oranges my friend. There is a great difference between our conflicts between a pest like Saddam and a nuclear weapon being successfully detonated in an American or European city.

 

[fishbob]

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

Why with nukes?

Not very likely is an organized attack by a recognized government - they all know we have deterrent capabilities.

I picture the eventuality with some fringe loonie group nuking us, not with an ICBM, but with a SORT (surreptitiously obtained rental truck). In that case, who do we respond against with our nukes? Where do we target? If we are not absolutely certain, then a conventional weapons response might make more sense.

 

[Crazycowbob]

That's easy to say, but I don't think it's very likely that the majority of countries in the world would side with an Islamic organization or North Korea if they happened to detonate a nuke in the USA. When you get down to it, American and Western values are more widely shared throughout the world than Islamic values or Juche/Stalinist Values.

I agree that they would not side with the aggressor country, but what I'm saying is that they would be highly critical of us were we to use nuclear weapons in response.

Apples and oranges my friend. There is a great difference between our conflicts between a pest like Saddam and a nuclear weapon being successfully detonated in an American or European city.

True, and in this post Iraq invasion world, I'd wager pretty much everyone thinks we'd be more likely to jump the gun than to hold back, so it's probably irrelevant anyway.

 

[Fnord]

Who originally said, "Nuke them back to the Stone Age, then bounce the rubble"?

 

[Beerina]

IMO there is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose for any country from a first strike. I can see an extreme remote possibility that a terrorist group or a really bat-s[rule 8]t loco dictator might have a slim chance of getting hold of one, but them getting a chance to use it would be even slimmer, and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

The victim country might figure out where the nuke came from, then issue an ultimatim to that country that, if your nukes are gonna kill us anyway because you are sloppy caretakers, turn them all over now, or else.

 

[Beerina]

I dunno about that.

You ARE talking about a post-WWI mindset here, especially for the Japanese. The Japanese were, quite frankly, ruthless; if America wouldn't have been able to bomb the Japanese with an atomic weapon, or if Japan could respond in kind, then quite frankly things would have definitely escalated in far worse ways than they did. The Japanese were... fervent, to say the least. They were training their children to fight as soldiers, and were willing to fight to the last man, practically.

The atomic bombs just made that will futile.

Yes, but are we allowed to continue thinking Japan was about to collapse anyway, in order that we may keep hating on America from a safe cushy distance in the future?

 

[Beerina]

Eh, I am deffinately looking forward to a new administration myself.

Well, imagine if Gore had eked out his win. He'd probably have cowered out of invading Afghanistan, waiting for "sanctions" to work, and Bin Laden would be still there thumbing his nose at us.

 

[SezMe]

...cowered out...

Ya know, Beerina, when you use language like that your whole post, if not your whole argument, loses most of ability to convince me.

 

[Kerberos]

Ya know, Beerina, when you use language like that your whole post, if not your whole argument, loses most of ability to convince me.

Argument? What argument? Beerina's post contained about as much of an argument as the Monty Python sketch.

 

[Merko]

Well, imagine if Gore had eked out his win. He'd probably have cowered out of invading Afghanistan, waiting for "sanctions" to work, and Bin Laden would be still there thumbing his nose at us.

And what exactly is Bin Laden doing now?

 

[Solus]

I'm not optimistic as some of you here. I don't believe it will be in my lifetime but someday the human race is going to wipe itself it out with nuclear or whatever weapon comes next. You can say I believe the worst of human nature will bring as all down in the end.

It's that: if I'm dying I'm taking you with me mentally. As seen in history, rational thought does not guide the destines of nations.