how to defend youself from a terrorist with a briefcase. - by Raven
Kolya on 5/12/2006 at 13:47
There are other ways to fight back.
Once you get into this mindset where you start believing everyone wants to melt you in a nuclear way all that you are able to come up with is another step in this direction. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
hopper on 5/12/2006 at 14:00
There are other ways to attack, as well.
Without nukes of your own, you are also a much softer target for conventional weapons, which is why you'll want to keep them even if you have a working SDI. Nukes are a useful deterrent against any type of attack (save attacks by enemies who don't have a country of their own to defend, such as terrorists, obviously).
Plus, there's always going to be that nagging doubt whether your SDI is actually going to work, since it'll never be possible to test it under near-live conditions. Doppelt hält besser, you know?
StD, I'm sure we all know the point of MAD. The question was whether MAD was the "point" of nukes in the first place. I'd argue the "point" of a nuke is to deal as much damage to an enemy as humanly possible.
Matthew on 5/12/2006 at 14:14
I'd say it was to deal as much damage as
inhumanly possible, but yeah.
There is, of course, also the fact that when we talk about 'nukes', we're usually talking about so-called 'strategic' platforms of delivery, such as missiles. SDI is designed to combat those, but there's nothing it can do against (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb) one of these.
So, even for an SDI-equipped nation, getting nuked (or having your armed forces nuked) is still a possibility.
EDIT: and Kolya, when I said 'you' I wasn't meaning
you, as it were, but as the head of a nation being required to take these sorts of factors into account for the national defence.
scumble on 5/12/2006 at 14:42
Can I suggest we stick StD and RBJ in the arena and let them fight to the death?
Moi Dix Mois on 5/12/2006 at 14:54
StD will crush RBJ's head between his vice-like thighs. It's not a fair match.
hopper on 5/12/2006 at 15:02
I dunno, RBJ might retaliate with a delicate mix of psychology and extreme violence.
Rug Burn Junky on 5/12/2006 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
hurr what
Dude, I know you ain't that bright, but come on, it's a very simple metaphor, and an old time saying. Please, do try to keep up. Incentives and punishments. Cause and effect. You'll figure it out eventually.
Or not, most probably.
Quote:
The point of MAD is that neither side can use the weapons. If one side can defend against them, then MAD is rendered irrelevant, and they can strike first without fear of destruction.
Yeah, and for the side that develops the shield, this is a bad thing, how, exactly?
That's like saying it's a bad idea to develop armor, because it'll prevent both combatants from being killed at the point of a sword. Again I ask, think this through before you post again.
You really aren't nearly as bright as you think you are. Also, as per usual, you are myopically naive.
That's a negotiation tactic. That's not "Hey, it's in our best interest that the Soviets have a shield too, LET'S JUST GIVE IT TO THEM. YIPPEE!" but rather, "Hey, whether we have the shield or not, it's in our best interest that they have fewer missiles, so let's use the threat of Very Uneven Assured Destruction to do a little armtwisting as well, and offer this out as leverage."
Again: Stick (We may be able to hit you and survive your counterattack) Carrot (But if you play nice, we may share that shield with you.).
Do you get it this time, or do we have to explain it more slowly for you to understand?
Quote:
Come back when you have a fucking clue :thumb:
please.
SD on 5/12/2006 at 16:16
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Yeah, and for the side that develops the shield, this is a bad thing, how, exactly?
Uh, I guess because you now have an increased possibility of all-out war where you never did before? Or is global nuclear winter not a bad thing any more?
The rest of what you wrote is your usual mixture of poor analogy, personal attacks and verbal posturing, so I feel no need to respond to it.
Turtle on 5/12/2006 at 16:49
Did you used to be smart?
I seem to remember someone with that name who could actually argue, sometimes even using real facts.
Rug Burn Junky on 5/12/2006 at 16:51
You really do miss the point:
[INDENT]"it'd remove the entire point of nuclear weapons in the first place, because if one side can defend against nuclear weapons, then you no longer have Mutual Assured Destruction,"[/INDENT]
That is a logically indefensible statement no matter how you slice it, because you are confusing outcomes with intentions.
The "point" of a sword is not to get sliced to shreds, the "point" of a gun is not to get shot yourself, and the "point" of nuclear weapons is not to be subject to being blown up yourself. This is only a "poor" analogy to the extent that your stubborn thick skull is incapable of understanding it. I'm trying to illustrate the flaws in your argument so that next time, maybe, just maybe, instead of posting useless bullshit, you'll actually construct a logically defensible argument. You're on the right track, and I'm trying to help you to not be a fucktard here.
Are there drawbacks to SDI? Yeah. Fuck yeah. Because they do change the balance of power, and that could destabilize things. But even though that's at the fringes of what you're saying, it's not what you actually ARE saying, and what you ARE saying is wrong.
Utterly, fucking wrong.
