The Nuclear Deterrent and its usefulness (or lack thereof)

@breadloaf: The thing about America and the Soviet Union is that they were both very meddlesome in other countries' affairs: giving economic/military aid to one side in a civil war, installing regimes that favored their interests, all that jazz. The concern was that, if the U.S. backed one side in a national conflict, and the U.S.S.R. backed the other, they'd find themselves drawn into war with each other on that foreign battlefield (World War I started much the same way). If it weren't for the threat posed by nuclear bombs, I'd have no trouble believing that America would have invaded Cuba in order to depose Castro, and that Russia would have sent in their own forces to prevent such a coup.

The term is "Proxy War", and there were quite a lot of them during the Cold War.

We had loads of proxy wars during the Cold War. It's in fact the number one cited reason for the decrease in violent death since 1991 because the US/USSR no longer competed in such a fashion anymore.

I think it a little frightening that the only way MAD works is if all governments acted in a perfectly beneficial way to their respective population because they have the foresight to understand nuclear war is unwinnable (as if conventional war was).

God. I don't think you'll ever change your opinions, breadloaf. Okay. MAD doesn't require all governments to be "perfectly beneficial," as you put it. It requires common sense.

And yes. Conventional war is winnable. Say what you will about insurgency, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were won. The Taliban and Hussein's government were militarily defeated and removed from power. That's a victory in a conventional war. Now, does that mean the concept of a conventional war is flawed? Yes. But don't tell me it's unwinnable. That's just foolishness. Was WW 2 "unwinnable?" Of course not. There was a winner and a loser, and anyone who knows any history will tell you that.

My point was that MAD kept American and Soviet conflicts at the proxy war level. Throughout the Cold War, no matter how many times they backed different sides in another country's civil war, they were very careful making sure that American soldiers and Soviet soldiers never fought each other directly. There were even cases where American soldiers/agents did kill Soviet soldiers/agents, and vice versa, and both sides worked very hard to keep these incidents secret, because they knew it would make their people clamor for war. If it weren't for the extreme, undefeatable threat posed by nuclear weapons, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would have been more willing to escalate their involvement in proxy wars and risk removing the proxy part and turning them into regular wars.

No, I probably won't ever change my mind. I really don't think that practising MAD is in any way sane, so I'll never really back the policy. Giving ourselves the ability to kill 100s of millions of people within hours as a method to prevent war is likely a policy that will, over the due course of time, kill 100s of millions of people. If common sense is all that is stopping anything, that pretty much means nothing at all.

We'll see. If I'm wrong, in the highly unlikely event that me, you, and the internet survive, I'll apologize.

If I'm right (and I think I am) you won't. But that's okay. Life goes on...

I made the point earlier that if I'm wrong, it's survivable, if you're wrong, it's not. That's why I'd rather err on not backing MAD than backing it.

I'd rather not be drafted, thanks. You might not be touched in Canada, but a major war would almost certainly involve the United States, and our government would draft and kill off most of my generation if necessary. So thanks, but I prefer my peace, even if it's backed by MAD.

And if we could get rid of all the world's nuclear weapons at once and stop new ones from being built, that would be great. However, barring the establishment of a powerful One World Government, there's not really a practical way to go about that.

So, as long as a world without nukes isn't an option, we're better off sticking with Mutually Assured Destruction, because the alternative, Unilaterally Assured Destruction, is much, much worse.

If that happens, I'd still make sure Nuclear Weapons could be built — just in case they were needed for something.

Even with a "powerful One World Government" it's not a certainty. The knowledge is out there, if you know where to look. (I'm not going to give any pointers on where to look. Probably a futile gesture, though.)

Realistically, the only way you can prevent nukes is to prevent people.

And, no, I didn't end that sentence prematurely.

Hey, a full-scale*

edited 18th May '12 4:43:27 AM by Vehudur

If you wish to rid the world of nuclear weapons, you would have to rid the world not only the reality of their current existence, which would be hard enough, but of the possibility that they would ever come back. Do I have to spell out what that would entail or can you work it out for yourselves?

Not doing MAD doesn't require the elimination of nuclear weapons, just reduction of them down to less then 100 for the Super Powers and even less for regional powers.

By definition, MAD means you build enough nukes to destroy at least the largest enemy you could potentially have upwards to destroying the entire world. If you don't do MAD, then you don't necessarily have that many nukes. You just have enough nukes to inflict harm on your enemy in such a way that it follows the old paradigm of military power; have enough to defend yourself, not enough to attack unless you're going to attack.

edited 19th May '12 11:51:19 AM by breadloaf

If there's not enough nukes in your arsenal, then it becomes technically possible to take them all out before they're launched OR to create a anti-missile system strong enough to negate them. With 300, you've got enough to be sure any country targeted will be crippled, whatever they do. With more than 1000, you upgrade the destruction to apocalypse. With 10000, you are at the premium stage of turning your opponent into a parking zone.

Less than 100 is good for regional politics, but not for the Big Game. You want multiple vectors, saturation capability and redundancy for the warheads that will inevitably fail to activate.