Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[XXSockXX]

Large attacks, which are extremely unlikely in the modern world (our wars are fought by proxy) can be deterred through other military defences.

And why is it that large attacks are unlikely and wars are fought by proxy? MAD. Exactly my point.

If something went wrong in Pakistan or Iran our nuclear bombs wouldn't solve that. That's a job for entirely different tactics.

Right, but again, they could not really do that much without risking to be annihilated. That's why there is room for different tactics.

[10ebbor10]

Does it need to cause a major attack on Europe? The entire point of a nuclear strike system is that it's never used. The nuke is the only weapon designed not to be fired.

There's a certain political edge in having nuclear deterrence capabilities, and there're plenty of diplomatical situations in which that one can be employed.

[Owlbread]

And why is it that large attacks are unlikely and wars are fought by proxy? MAD. Exactly my point.

Right, but again, they could not really do that much without risking to be annihilated. That's why there is room for different tactics.

I've already explained that I don't believe that MAD is what is protecting us now. Global conflicts nowadays aren't kept at bay by MAD, they're kept at bay through the need for every country (whether it's China, Russia, Portugal or the United Kingdom) to maintain the carefully constructed financial and diplomatic stability that we depend so much upon. The need for our governments to maintain stability for the sake of all the financial institutions and power structures that depend on them is what is protecting us.

If Pakistan goes down the tubes, nuclear weapons simply won't be an option - not because they fear they'll get nuked too (they would by India if they hadn't disarmed, as they would in an ideal world) but because they would be completely ostracised by the international community and would suddenly feel the weight of many world-class armies on their soil, sent there to "keep the peace" i.e. maintain stability.

Does it need to cause a major attack on Europe? The entire point of a nuclear strike system is that it's never used. The nuke is the only weapon designed not to be fired.

There's a certain political edge in having nuclear deterrence capabilities, and there're plenty of diplomatical situations in which that one can be employed.

Please explain further.

[Sheb]

What is Iran or Pakistan going to do if we don't have nukes? How does Trident help the UK with regard to Iran or Pakistan?

10ebbor, what edge does it give us? Can you cite a single diplomatic situation in which UK diplomacy benefited or would benefit from Trident?

[10ebbor10]

What is Iran or Pakistan going to do if we don't have nukes? How does Trident help the UK with regard to Iran or Pakistan?

10ebbor, what edge does it give us? Can you cite a single diplomatic situation in which UK diplomacy benefited or would benefit from Trident?

I wasn't talking about the UK, I was talking about at least having some nuclear strike capacity in the EU (preferentially under the umbrella of the EU), rather than relying completely on the goodwill of Russia/ US.

Edit: As for why it would be usefull, it's the ultimate gunboat policy. Though the situation would've to be pretty dire for that to happen.

[Owlbread]

I wasn't talking about the UK, I was talking about at least having some nuclear strike capacity in the EU (preferentially under the umbrella of the EU), rather than relying completely on the goodwill of Russia/ US.

The EU is even more contentious. As Sheb asked of the UK, how would having nuclear strike capacity in the EU help with regard to Iran or Pakistan?

[XXSockXX]

I've already explained that I don't believe that MAD is what is protecting us now. Global conflicts nowadays aren't kept at bay by MAD, they're kept at bay through the need for every country (whether it's China, Russia, Portugal or the United Kingdom) to maintain the carefully constructed financial and diplomatic stability that we depend so much upon. The need for our governments to maintain stability for the sake of all the financial institutions and power structures that depend on them is what is protecting us.

This is where we disagree in terms of causality. What you describe is true, but it is a direct result of the Cold War not going hot, which is a direct result of MAD. The current economic and diplomatic structures were simply the only (or at least the most beneficial) option after the nuclear stalemate.

The EU is even more contentious. As Sheb asked of the UK, how would having nuclear strike capacity in the EU help with regard to Iran or Pakistan?

I don't want to speculate about specific potential conflicts. The one thing nuclear strike capacity gives you is power. I believe in Realpolitik, so if you don't want to be irrelevant, you need power. It's not nice or how an ideal world should be, but I believe that's the way it is.

[10ebbor10]

I wasn't talking about the UK, I was talking about at least having some nuclear strike capacity in the EU (preferentially under the umbrella of the EU), rather than relying completely on the goodwill of Russia/ US.

The EU is even more contentious. As Sheb asked of the UK, how would having nuclear strike capacity in the EU help with regard to Iran or Pakistan?

Say, US has extra troubles because of economical problems, and no longer supports Israel. Iran, maybe some other countries support Pakistan, and the state of Israel gets in trouble. Then in this ensuing conflict, Russia and EU end up being on other sides, for a variety of reasons.

Within 30 years, Europe's economical and Military power will have likely been marginalized to such an extent that embargoes and the like won't work. The only thing stopping Russia from a direct intervention would be the vague threat of an European first strike.

[Kicior]

ALL THOSE NINJAS

Worldwide disarmament, living in harmony and peace would be the best course of action, no doubt about that, unfortunately logic does not always apply to politics.

£720 billion - total expenditures of UK in 2013
£2.67 billion - cost of maintaining nukes for a year (assuming that it costs 80 billion for 30 years)
It's spare change. 0.3% of annual expenditures.

Just a lot of problems. War comes alongside problems like that quite often, but times have changed and now the ruling establishments of the world will work as hard as they possibly can to maintain stability. War is the last thing on anyone's mind, and no matter how rough things get in China we won't see any bombs dropping any time soon.

Put Germany in place of China and this quote will  describe situation in Europe during the interwar period

Large attacks, which are extremely unlikely in the modern world (our wars are fought by proxy) can be deterred through other military defences.

Partially because nobody can afford being nuked back into stone age. What are the other military defences? Which of them didn't we have before II world war?

[10ebbor10]

((Said spare chance is larger than quite a few of the world's space programs, amongst others))

[Pnx]

Just a lot of problems. War comes alongside problems like that quite often, but times have changed and now the ruling establishments of the world will work as hard as they possibly can to maintain stability. War is the last thing on anyone's mind, and no matter how rough things get in China we won't see any bombs dropping any time soon.

Put Germany in place of China and this quote will  describe situation in Europe during the interwar period

This is a fairly good point, we don't know that the Chinese leadership won't be exchanged for a more warlike one in the future... Though it seems a lot less likely compared to old Germany given that they're not racked with instability and economic issues.

[10ebbor10]

Just a lot of problems. War comes alongside problems like that quite often, but times have changed and now the ruling establishments of the world will work as hard as they possibly can to maintain stability. War is the last thing on anyone's mind, and no matter how rough things get in China we won't see any bombs dropping any time soon.

Put Germany in place of China and this quote will  describe situation in Europe during the interwar period

This is a fairly good point, we don't know that the Chinese leadership won't be exchanged for a more warlike one in the future... Though it seems a lot less likely compared to old Germany given that they're not racked with instability and economic issues.

China's got plenty of instability. It's just brutally suppressed. Adding to that, the Chinese economy has to grow with 10% to avoid causing internal trouble(It's a totalitarian state, after all) and shows signs of "overheating" and possible collapsing in the near future. *

* Think lost decennium collapse, as happened in Japan.

[Sheb]

The difference before WWII is that we had several equal-sized power, so that a military conflict could mean gain for some. Nowadays, with the EU as a proto-state, Europe simply doesn't have neighbors that can attack it anymore. Russia is the only significantly-sized power on our borders, and it is outspent by a factor of 3 by the EU, got an ageing, shrinking population, and is going to see his economy falter as Europe move away from Russian gas.

I guess you could argue an European deterrent is a protection against a Russian nuclear first strike. But again, over the whole cold war, European state without nuke of their own were totally fine with the US nuclear umbrella.

As for the nukes giving you power in diplomacy, I call bullshit. Nukes are power you can't wield, since they're weapons that you can't use.

P.S.

This is a fairly good point, we don't know that the Chinese leadership won't be exchanged for a more warlike one in the future... Though it seems a lot less likely compared to old Germany given that they're not racked with instability and economic issues.

The difference is that China is on the other side of the world. The Chinese leadership turning all warlike would be more like Imperial Japan. Nasty, violent, and not a security concern to Europe at all, due to it being a continent away.

[Kicior]

As for the nukes giving you power in diplomacy, I call bullshit. Nukes are power you can't wield, since they're weapons that you can't use.

I guess that citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree.
On a more serious note - if nukes are useles, why do so many countries have them? Why are people so concerned about Iran and North Korea having nukes?

The difference is that China is on the other side of the world. The Chinese leadership turning all warlike would be more like Imperial Japan. Nasty, violent, and not a security concern to Europe at all, due to it being a continent away.

If China is too far to be able to threaten us, why isn't the USA too far to protect us?

[10ebbor10]

Besides, globalization and stuff. Everyone who counts has the range to attack worldwide, and you don't even need to attack world wide to make it hurt.