Nuclear War Is Not and Should Not Be Unthinkable

[Higgly]

Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain't something else. This is this. From now on, you're on your own.

---Mike: The Deer Hunter

A movie quote. I love it. You need to get out more, paleface.

[DogOnPorch]

A movie quote. I love it. You need to get out more, paleface.

And what a movie it was...had to go out to see it...paleface.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't like to watch my own movies - I fall asleep in my own movies.

---Robert De Niro

[Topaz]

As you do unto others, so will it be done unto you.

OR... do unto others as they would unto you, only do it first!

[Higgly]

I don't like to watch my own movies - I fall asleep in my own movies.

---Robert De Niro

Heh heh...

[Rue]

See my problem JBG you hoo where are you....is that I don't trust any human with a nuke weapon or for that matter anything nuclear. Humans by our very nature are either nuts or stupid either way, its a bad mix with this stuff.

The MAD scenario I don't buy and I will tell you why. Mutual deterrence assumes politicians are sane and logical and react that way under pressure. However we know the exact opposite is the case. Ultimately the decision to use or not use a nuke will come down to someone's emotions and gut. Me no like that idea.

Here is my other problem. I doubt once a nuke is used, it ends with that one nuke detonation. There is necessarily a retaliatory strike or what people like me refer to as schizmogenesis, escalating circular responses that escalate the exchange.

Finally I hate nukes for this reason-if they exist some terrorist can get their hands on one. Then again from what I hear anyone can make a dirty bomb if they really want to by just going on the inter-net.

So no thanks JBG. I prefer dance offs or pie eating contests. I will oil wrestle women mind you.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Rue

[Peter F]

MAD is insane. To be effective it requires the person making the decision to be irrational.

A ratonal leader, when faced with an enemy launching a first strike, would not launch the counter-strike. Once the enemy's rockets are on thier way the destruction of the target state is absolutely assured. Launching a counter-strike cannot change that. A counter-strike can only increase the death and destruction without any hope of saving the target state.

A rational man would not launch a countrer-strike. A rational man would, in fact, launch the first strike, knowing that the rational leader of the target state would not strike back.

To avoid this, MAD was concieved and promulgated, and requires a nations leader to in fact be irrational. It's the only way MAD can work. Irrational leaders are required.

I read that in a book somewhere. Can't remember the name of it though.

[M.Dancer]

MAD is insane. To be effective it requires the person making the decision to be irrational.

A ratonal leader, when faced with an enemy launching a first strike, would not launch the counter-strike. Once the enemy's rockets are on thier way the destruction of the target state is absolutely assured. Launching a counter-strike cannot change that. A counter-strike can only increase the death and destruction without any hope of saving the target state.

A rational man would not launch a countrer-strike. A rational man would, in fact, launch the first strike, knowing that the rational leader of the target state would not strike back.

To avoid this, MAD was concieved and promulgated, and requires a nations leader to in fact be irrational. It's the only way MAD can work. Irrational leaders are required.

I read that in a book somewhere. Can't remember the name of it though.

You don't grasp then what MAD is. Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, MAD has failed. MAD means mutual assured destruction. The prospect that no one side could win prevents a first strike being launched in the first place. So the rational man must assume that if he attacks, he too will face attack.

MAD prevented a nuclear war for decades.

[Sulaco]

You don't grasp then what MAD is. Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, MAD has failed. MAD means mutual assured destruction. The prospect that no one side could win prevents a first strike being launched in the first place. So the rational man must assume that if he attacks, he too will face attack.

MAD prevented a nuclear war for decades.

Again you beat me to it.

[GostHacked]

"Would you like to play a game?"

So again, here it is proven that an Irrational man is needed for MAD. The rational man won't fire first or second, for both of them know that it is the end for both.

The irrational man will strike first or strike back. A rational man will strike first or strike back.

MAD only happens if both rational or irrational (or a combo of them) leaders fire ze missles. if one fails to launch for any reason, then MAD is a failure. Even a rational leader will fire back. If I go, you go. Simple as that. And there is no reason to complicate this matter. This is what it is.

http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?ar...&AppId=1520

Here is one way a person can learn about MAD. Do it yourself. Pretty neat little game available on Steam. I played the demo and the interface it should remind you of the 1983's movie War Games. It is very somber, and the game is low def, not much in the eyecandy department, but when a city gets nuked and you see the death toll in the form of a little graphic with "Washington, 1.3 Milliion Dead"

M. Dancer

You don't grasp then what MAD is. Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, MAD has failed.

Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, AND THERE IS NO RETALITORY STRIKE, MAD has failed. As long as the stalemate continues, then the threat of MAD is saving us from MAD.

Also some of you should check out a series called Jericho, I think it has been cancelled. But it raises some interesting questions and scenarios with regards to nuclear war.

And to end this post : The best choice is not to play.

[Higgly]

You don't grasp then what MAD is. Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, MAD has failed. MAD means mutual assured destruction. The prospect that no one side could win prevents a first strike being launched in the first place. So the rational man must assume that if he attacks, he too will face attack.

MAD prevented a nuclear war for decades.

The weak point of course, as Rue has pointed out, is that people are not always rational. Again, consider how close we came during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Castro had the button on his desk, they'd still be waiting for Washington to stop glowing.

In any case, the article and the idea are slightly suspect given the publication. Here is a blurb from the "About Us" page....

...Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970’s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards....

So let's see... what country has nuclear weapons that a lot of people scratching their heads about? Hmm....

[Sulaco]

"Would you like to play a game?"

So again, here it is proven that an Irrational man is needed for MAD. The rational man won't fire first or second, for both of them know that it is the end for both.

The irrational man will strike first or strike back. A rational man will strike first or strike back.

MAD only happens if both rational or irrational (or a combo of them) leaders fire ze missles. if one fails to launch for any reason, then MAD is a failure. Even a rational leader will fire back. If I go, you go. Simple as that. And there is no reason to complicate this matter. This is what it is.

http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?ar...&AppId=1520

Here is one way a person can learn about MAD. Do it yourself. Pretty neat little game available on Steam. I played the demo and the interface it should remind you of the 1983's movie War Games. It is very somber, and the game is low def, not much in the eyecandy department, but when a city gets nuked and you see the death toll in the form of a little graphic with "Washington, 1.3 Milliion Dead"

M. Dancer

Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, AND THERE IS NO RETALITORY STRIKE, MAD has failed. As long as the stalemate continues, then the threat of MAD is saving us from MAD.

Also some of you should check out a series called Jericho, I think it has been cancelled. But it raises some interesting questions and scenarios with regards to nuclear war.

And to end this post : The best choice is not to play.

MAD is not a descriptive theory of what happens after a first strike is launched. It is a theory of how a first strike is prevented. It is also a strategy based on that theory. In short every party Y has to make it clear to every party X that if Party X launches a first strike than Party Y will retaliate. As long as Party X believes Party Y a nuclear exchange should not happen - assuming that party X is a rational player. Thus not further behoves party Y to:

1. not hide its nuclear capability but make it clear i has sufficient capability to destroy X.

2. make sure that X believes Y will stick to its word.

3. make sure that retaliatory ccapibility is nto overshadowed by X's counter measures

4. Arguably make sure not to make leaps in technology over X, or to hide such leaps because oif X comes to believe it is falling behind it may atttempt to launch a first strike (this last is a controversial proposition)

In short MAD relies on pretty honest information exchange about capabilities and a strict intent displayed at all times that retaliation will be carried out.

If Party X is an irrational player MAD fails and you enter an escalation spiral.

You fail in grasping that MAD is not a descriptor but a prescriptor.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

The weak point of course, as Rue has pointed out, is that people are not always rational. Again, consider how close we came during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Castro had the button on his desk, they'd still be waiting for Washington to stop glowing.

In any case, the article and the idea are slightly suspect given the publication. Here is a blurb from the "About Us" page....

So let's see... what country has nuclear weapons that a lot of people scratching their heads about? Hmm....

If a country which has nukes is not led by a rational government then everything is out the window. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't practice MAD with rational players. MAD still works with rational players. It means you should preven non-rational players from getting a hold of niukes. This is what NPT is about and this is why the US worked to preven Iraq from attaining WMDs. This is also why everyone is worried about Iran.

The prevention of nuke war is a two pronged approach - one half is MAD for existing rational players and the other half is NP for new players who are potentially irrational. If a new player enters you either have to teach him to be rational or - at that point - it amke sense for all the senior pplayers to wipe out this destabilizer before he builds up a sizeable arsenal.

Let me ask you this. In the absence of MAD what would you do? Absence of MAD basically means that party X tells part Y that if party Y launches the first strike party X will specifically NOT retaliate.

It's really a binary system.

So again - what you guys do instead of employing MAD where possible?

Edited November 29, 2007 by Sulaco

[Higgly]

If a country which has nukes is not led by a rational government then everything is out the window. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't practice MAD with rational players. MAD still works with rational players. It means you should preven non-rational players from getting a hold of niukes. This is what NPT is about and this is why the US worked to preven Iraq from attaining WMDs. This is also why everyone is worried about Iran.

The prevention of nuke war is a two pronged approach - one half is MAD for existing rational players and the other half is NP for new players who are potentially irrational. If a new player enters you either have to teach him to be rational or - at that point - it amke sense for all the senior pplayers to wipe out this destabilizer before he builds up a sizeable arsenal.

Let me ask you this. In the absence of MAD what would you do? Absence of MAD basically means that party X tells part Y that if party Y launches the first strike party X will specifically NOT retaliate.

It's really a binary system.

So again - what you guys do instead of employing MAD where possible?

In any case, wasn't the article about using Nukes to stave off conventional war? MAD was about everybody on both sides having nukes.

What would I do? I say stick with conventional warfare. At least then you've got a fighting chance. Countries with superior nuclear capability are likely to have superior conventional capability anyways. If you bring nukes into the picture you can kill multitudes of people and destroy a country with just one weapon, a simple delivery system (say a shipping container) and a guy to push the button.

[Sulaco]

In any case, wasn't the article about using Nukes to stave off conventional war? MAD was about everybody on both sides having nukes.

What would I do? I say stick with conventional warfare. At least then you've got a fighting chance. Countries with superior nuclear capability are likely to have superior conventional capability anyways. If you bring nukes into the picture you can kill multitudes of people and destroy a country with just one weapon, a simple delivery system (say a shipping container) and a guy to push the button.

yes - but you were involved in a conversation on MAD.

As for the United States' pladge to strike first in case of oconventional attack by the Soviets in the European theater - the doctrine made sense given the fact that Soviet conventional forces were far larger. It was also a limitted doctrine. The US assured the SU that if the SU attacked the US would carry out nuclear strikes but those strikes would be tactical rather than strategic - defensive rather than offensive.

At that point - in theory MAD kicks in, in that the Soviets would be faced with a choice of escalating a tactical nuke attack into a full exchange.

Again - SU was always assumed to be a rational player - therfore the umbrella created by American doctrine worked.

[Topaz]

After living through many wars in this world I wish that the species of MAN would stop making war that no one wins and everyone loses! Two male leader have words , pound their chest and one says I'll show you and boom, thousand of people die, mostly women and children or are mained for live!! What is it going to take before we have peace in this world again?? Maybe we should get the leaders of these countries into a cage and say ok, you want war go to it and kill each other! Can you see some of the leaders in a cage to the death??? And as far as Bush peace talks in the Middle-East, he needs something in his library and right now he's the major person causing a war!

[bush_cheney2004]

After living through many wars in this world I wish that the species of MAN would stop making war that no one wins and everyone loses! Two male leader have words , pound their chest and one says I'll show you and boom, thousand of people die, mostly women and children or are mained for live!!

No, more men die in wars than women and children. PM's Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Ghandi were not "male", but surely pounded their "chests" in war. Women casually abort far more babies.

What is it going to take before we have peace in this world again?? Maybe we should get the leaders of these countries into a cage and say ok, you want war go to it and kill each other! Can you see some of the leaders in a cage to the death??? And as far as Bush peace talks in the Middle-East, he needs something in his library and right now he's the major person causing a war!

There has never been 'peace' in this world.

[jbg]

So no thanks JBG. I prefer dance offs or pie eating contests. I will oil wrestle women mind you.

You and I disagree on a lot here. How would you suggest meeting a conventional threat?

[GostHacked]

Bush Cheney

No, more men die in wars than women and children. PM's Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Ghandi were not "male", but surely pounded their "chests" in war. Women casually abort far more babies.

I agree with you here.

You are correct, however, but let me tell you how you are correct. In the past men have been on the battlefield and back on the homefront. Since children are not allowed to fight, and women have been allowed to fight for the past 50 years (guessing here alright?) When a city is bombed, men die, when a battle rages in theatre, men die. But to detract from the tragedy that is the casualty of war (soldier/civilian) The civilians are not as important for they are termed 'collateral damage'.

So all this phallic missile making is just that. Who has the bigger one. Something man has been flaunting since day one. Weapons have escalated and increased in efficiency and capacity. Eventually there will the the Mofo of ALL bombs.

We have enough nukes on the planet to destroy ourselves many many times over. Does that not seem wrong to you? We can blow up the freakin moon. We can crack our own planet in half if all the nukes where set off deep in the earth. The damage these weapons can do leaves me in awe, and frightened.

All this nuke crap is straight up gangster posturing.

[ScottSA]

So all this phallic missile making is just that. Who has the bigger one. Something man has been flaunting since day one. Weapons have escalated and increased in efficiency and capacity. Eventually there will the the Mofo of ALL bombs.

I love the jaunt into post-modern feminist "theory." It has never failed to make me chuckle since it was spawned in the early 90s. Oh, and lightbulbs are womb-shaped, invented by Thomasina Edidaughter to spread warmth and light over the world...What utter hogwash.

[Rue]

You don't grasp then what MAD is. Under MAD, if a first strike is launched, MAD has failed. MAD means mutual assured destruction. The prospect that no one side could win prevents a first strike being launched in the first place. So the rational man must assume that if he attacks, he too will face attack.

MAD prevented a nuclear war for decades.

Again you assume a rational man is in charge and will assume things. Two huge assumptions and political psychology has proven time and time again politicians under pressure are not necessarily rational and often miscalculate situations.

[Rue]

I love the jaunt into post-modern feminist "theory." It has never failed to make me chuckle since it was spawned in the early 90s. Oh, and lightbulbs are womb-shaped, invented by Thomasina Edidaughter to spread warmth and light over the world...What utter hogwash.

It has nothing to do with feminist theory and everything to do with conventional Freudian psychoanalytic precepts. Feminists don't buy into Freudian theory. The analysis of weapons being extensions of the male penis and related to how men express their identity through displays of aggression and showing whose penis is bigger (who has more missiles) is a Freudian theory and I for one totally buy it. Show me a man who obsesses over the amount of missiles he has and I can show you someone anxious about his pee pee. Why we men pretend we are complex is beyond me. Women figured us out a long time ago. Bang Bang. I point my gun at you. Right like you are going to impress today's woman with a display of missiles. Try getting rid of the pot belly.

[jbg]

So all this phallic missile making is just that. Who has the bigger one. Something man has been flaunting since day one. Weapons have escalated and increased in efficiency and capacity. Eventually there will the the Mofo of ALL bombs.

We have enough nukes on the planet to destroy ourselves many many times over. Does that not seem wrong to you? We can blow up the freakin moon. We can crack our own planet in half if all the nukes where set off deep in the earth. The damage these weapons can do leaves me in awe, and frightened.

All this nuke crap is straight up gangster posturing.

Not so fast. The problem is that the most likely invaders always have the advantage in conventional warfare. These are normally totalitarians of some stripe, since democracies (except in pre-emption situations such as the 1967 war, Afghanistan and Iraq) rarely initiate wars. The offensive parties thus can mass an economically feasible group of soldiers, and pick their own time and place for an attack. The defending parties' options are limited. They can either try to maintain a defensive line across a hostile perimeter (this option didn't work for France with the Maginot Line or Israel with the Bar-Lev Line), try to maintain adequate conventional defense capabilities (i.e. put everyone between 17 and 29 under arms and on patrol, possible but bad for economy) or ready a devastating response to any attack (i.e. nukes).

Which sounds like the best option?

[ScottSA]

It has nothing to do with feminist theory and everything to do with conventional Freudian psychoanalytic precepts. Feminists don't buy into Freudian theory. The analysis of weapons being extensions of the male penis and related to how men express their identity through displays of aggression and showing whose penis is bigger (who has more missiles) is a Freudian theory and I for one totally buy it. Show me a man who obsesses over the amount of missiles he has and I can show you someone anxious about his pee pee. Why we men pretend we are complex is beyond me. Women figured us out a long time ago. Bang Bang. I point my gun at you. Right like you are going to impress today's woman with a display of missiles. Try getting rid of the pot belly.

No, Rue, you're quite wrong. This is straight from post-modern feminism. I've read several alleged "academic papers" on it, and anyone familiar with the genre will recognize it immediately. In fact the term "missile envy" originated with Carol Cohn in what amounts to a diatribe against "male centric" militarism and the terminology used in strategic studies at the academic level. Her extrapolations are quite silly; taking terminology and pointing to sexual imagery is one thing, but constructing around that a paradigmatic construct claiming that men made war is outright silliness. Once again you ponce into a conversation, pronounce upon it, and if the past is anything to judge by, you'll not be admitting your error. You're rather a bombastic little man, aren't you?

[Higgly]

After living through many wars in this world I wish that the species of MAN would stop making war that no one wins and everyone loses! Two male leader have words , pound their chest and one says I'll show you and boom, thousand of people die, mostly women and children or are mained for live!! What is it going to take before we have peace in this world again?? Maybe we should get the leaders of these countries into a cage and say ok, you want war go to it and kill each other! Can you see some of the leaders in a cage to the death??? And as far as Bush peace talks in the Middle-East, he needs something in his library and right now he's the major person causing a war!

Good for you. This is exactly the problem.

[Higgly]

Not so fast. The problem is that the most likely invaders always have the advantage in conventional warfare. These are normally totalitarians of some stripe, since democracies (except in pre-emption situations such as the 1967 war, Afghanistan and Iraq) rarely initiate wars. The offensive parties thus can mass an economically feasible group of soldiers, and pick their own time and place for an attack. The defending parties' options are limited. They can either try to maintain a defensive line across a hostile perimeter (this option didn't work for France with the Maginot Line or Israel with the Bar-Lev Line), try to maintain adequate conventional defense capabilities (i.e. put everyone between 17 and 29 under arms and on patrol, possible but bad for economy) or ready a devastating response to any attack (i.e. nukes).

Which sounds like the best option?

OK. Why not defend the principle that invasion is wrong? This is where I put my money.

Iraq was a real watershed. Bush et al put a case before the UN predicated on their assertion that Iraq had WMD. UN weapons inspectors were not given a chance to report fully but were forced to flee for their lives. Subsequent to the invasion, no WMD have been found.

The world needs to decide whether it wants a rules-based system or a power-based system. I vote rules-based.