It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Deterrence theory is a relic. If it is proven wrong, as many theories are, we will all be very sorry. In my opinion, it does far more harm than good, should an accident occur.
Do you have any other options that would be better in your opinion than DT?
Originally posted by astroblade
decent logic but i must play devils advocate now. how then, do you explain the fact that the U.S. and Russia never used nuclear weapons on each other during the cold war?
I must regretfully bow out of this discussion now as I can see that your arguments are based on your beliefs and opinions as opposed to facts and logic. You continue to attempt to muddy the waters through the use of false analogies with systems like the Space Shuttle and MS Windows, using a few examples of commonality of concept but ignoring the large numbers of differences which make up the reality of the comparison.
Your reliance on Ike Jeanes book to the point of falsely claiming that it “is the ONLY book in the world that discusses the nuclear problem in detail and the author is the first person to give us systems with which to understand the issues” highlights your lack of objectivity. It may be the only one that ties in with your opinions but that does not make it the only one to discuss this issue in depth.
I suggest that you read a few other books and articles on the subject, to try and get a better understanding of what fundamentals of deterrence are. I do not want to come across as condescending but I feel that you have a rather simplified view of it. Your desire to merge the concepts of nuclear deterrence with C4I for nuclear weapons shows this.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
MAD works, so long as those in charge are sound of mind. There is no way for the US or Russia to launch a nuclear first strike and not recieve a near equal strength retalitory attack. You can't argue that.
Who's arguing that? I am aware that MAD will result in destruction on both sides. It will not be "Assured Destruction" because there will be survivors.
I could go on like this through your whole post but I think you see where this is going.
SmallPeeps,
"Statistics tell us how the world works."
Wrong. If you think this is true then I cannot help you.
I think you will find that the only thing guaranteed to bring about a massive nuclear exchange would be a massive nuclear strike on either the US, Russia or China by one of the same. In my opinion an accidental would not be enough. Why, you might ask? Well because a single accidental strike would kill perhaps 10 million people ( worst case ). Retaliation would mean a likely twenty-fold increase in this number. Now it would take a special kind of maniac to think that the best way to avenge 10 million deaths is to sentence another 200 million of your countrymen to the same.
I will continue the scenario upon reciept of your answer. Try and keep the answers brief as you do not have a lot of time
San Diego, Grand Forks, Offut, Norfolk and Seattle.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
I want to untangle this Gordian Knot of nuke-war. I will have only respect for anyone who posts any ideas toward that goal.
[edit on 20-5-2005 by smallpeeps]
en.wikipedia.org...
"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."
Bush, Merkel united on Iran's nuclear threat
www.cnn.com...
The EU-3 nations of Britain, France and Germany -- which have negotiated with Iran in hopes of reaching a resolution -- together with the United States must work to persuade other nations to join their stance, said Merkel.
"And we will certainly not be intimidated by a country such as Iran," she said.
Ukraine Wants to Produce Own Nuclear Fuel
news.yahoo.com...
"Yushchenko's call could put his Western allies in an awkward position as they seek to balance the desire to help Ukraine shed Russian influence with concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and their campaign to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions."
www.themodernreligion.com...
"The American Muslim birthrate is about 4.5 children per couple, versus the 1.9 child per couple national [USA] average."