Nuclear Arms

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
George the original one
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Nuclear Arms

Postby George the original one » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:48 pm

Trump and Putin are both now on a mission to increase nuclear arms. Anybody think increasing nuclear arms these days is a credible military deterrent?

P.S. Merry Christmas.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3747
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby Ego » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:56 pm

Trump is not the kind of guy whose ego can withstand everyone believing he is Putin's lapdog. I hope he finds better ways to convince himself of his own strength and vigor than nukes.

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby Kriegsspiel » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:20 pm

George the original one wrote:Trump and Putin are both now on a mission to increase nuclear arms. Anybody think increasing nuclear arms these days is a credible military deterrent?


No.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby fiby41 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:49 am

Not if the country you want to deter already has a No First Use policy.

J_
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Netherlands/Austria

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby J_ » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:21 am

No! And not a good combination with your PS

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby fiby41 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:03 pm

Today India successfully test-fired Agni-5 अग्नि-५ nuclear-capable long-range indigenously-developed surface-to-surface inter-continental ballistic-missile with operational-range of 5,000 km.

Bismarck
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 pm

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby Bismarck » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:57 pm

I'm more concerned about what the us response would/should be if North Korea nukes s korea, Japan, or the us. For deterrence to work the other guy has to believe you'll actually launch a nuke. We have to fire back, and I don't think conventional weapons prove the point. The fallout from our response likely hits china.

OTCW
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:55 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby OTCW » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:21 pm

Duck and cover. I feel like I am back in 5th grade.

James_0011
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby James_0011 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:06 pm

No, your hypothesis has been disproven in a few academic studies. Ill find references when I have more time. Basically, more nukes = less safety.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4044
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby Dragline » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:30 am

Just another waste of money. We are awash in nukes.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby IlliniDave » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:22 pm

The only thing that would come close to making sense would modernizing antiquated inventory, and even that is pretty distasteful. Unfortunately putting the genie back in the bottle is not something anyone will do.

subgard
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Nuclear Arms

Postby subgard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:37 pm

Safety relative to number of nukes is probably an S-curve.
Increasing nukes from 1-10 - Marginally more deterrence.
Increasing nukes from 10-100 - Substantial increase in deterrence.
Increasing nukes from 100-1000 - Back to marginal increase.
Increasing from 1000 to 10000 - Probably nil increase in deterrence

Most nuclear powers are in the sweet spot of the curve (a few 100), while Russia and the US have overshot ridiculously.


Return to “Politics, and other eternal disagreements”