Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: disarm
Chuck    2/5/2002 5:46:31 PM
Hey guys, I just want to thank you Radioactive man and pfd for the help with strategic and tactical nukes. I mopped the floor with them. You guys kick ass But now I have another plan to go against. This one calls for complete disarm of all WMD'S. Besides deterrence, why is this bad? Any and all help will be welcome. Than you.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
bsl    RE:disarm   2/5/2002 7:42:44 PM
Which is a bigger threat? A condition where you and your enemy have WMD or one in which you have given them up, but your enemy, while saying that they have, actually have WMD of their own? In the former case, you have some hope of deterring their use because you can threaten to retaliate in kind. In the latter case, there you are, with a big, stupid grin on your face because of your oh-so-pure soul which gave peace a chance, when the reports of mushroom clouds start coming in. What do you propose? A harsh diplomatic note? You might pay attention to the reports of debates on this sort of issue. You will generally find that the side proposing disarmament will make a statement about how we will be protected by "verification" or "a robust verification program" or something like that. Notice how well that worked with respect to Iraq? Remember back in the 1980s, when Israel attacked an Israeli reactor complex at Osirak, and the "international community" went on about how there was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program? Did you also notice how, during the Gulf War, American spokesmen began admitting that if the Israelis hadn't destroyed that complex, we would have faced Iraqi nuclear weapons? There's a lesson in that.
Quote    Reply

pfd    RE:disarm   2/20/2002 6:14:17 AM
The study of US/USSR treaties is a fascinating subject. Someone once calculated the resolution of a KH-11 satellite's definintion as the width of the last stage of a Soviet ICBM. This goes on to reinforce BSL's arguement. -Verification. You can count holes in the ground (silos) or hatches on a submarine but the rest gets very tricky. Can that artillery piece pack a nuke? Are those hardpoints on a bomber nuclear capable? Is the hold of that Liberian freighter full of machine parts/Hashish or 50 kilotons of award winning adventure? Even during the European ss-20 controversy it was discovered that the US Pershing 2 could pop Moscow with a very low warning time. And this was a 'legit' system. Legit is the key. You can count, codify and classify legit systems. Those nations that own them grow up fast. They conduct legitimate diplomacy and keep their promises-study the US/USSR treaties. The Pershing 2's don't exist anymore along with the SS-20s. The current fear is that of the slob states that act like wannabes. The US and USSR acted like good NRA members about gun ownership. These up and comers want to brag about their 'nines'. ...wheres your verification? It is sick and sad that these devices exist-but they do. But they kept the peace. The new comers don't seem to want the peace but the edge and that is a teflon covered slope that I pray nobody experiences. Bottom line summation- keep your nukes, it beats horror.
Quote    Reply