Print

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

[Helgoland]

Could we get a poll - for/against MAD?

[Sheb]

How can you be against MAD? It logically follow from the existence of nuclear weapons and lack of efficient anti-nuke system. It's not good or bad, it just is.

[LordSlowpoke]

i want to play a military design game based in the cold war right now but they're lots and lots of effort for gms to do and it'll turn into a bureaucratic shitfest within hours of its creation i bet

can i just grab a bunch of gms from different games and mash them into a council which will produce turns then run the turns through a bunch of guardian gis (get yourself cloned m8) so it's GLORIOUS enough and then publish the stuff? no? knew it.

still that's the kind of stuff i want to do now. man i'd bring a lot of fun ideas to the soviet r&d which would have me laughed out of the ussr within a month

[misko27]

I know Sheb, I just don't even get it. They just hear the theory and don't think about it beyond "Nukes are bad". And it just is, like the balance of power in world politics.

It's basically the reason we haven't all died in nuclear fire; how could any reasonable person be against it? It's counter-intuitive, but it makes logical sense, and it makes peace damnit. It's actually the reason why ABM systems are more destructive to peace then actual nukes.

[Owlbread]

How can you be against MAD? It logically follow from the existence of nuclear weapons and lack of efficient anti-nuke system. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Despite my earlier musings even I know that if I was in the Soviets' position I would probably arm myself to the teeth.

[Culise]

How can you be against MAD? It logically follow from the existence of nuclear weapons and lack of efficient anti-nuke system. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Nah, it follows from proliferation, not the invention.  Reading up on some of the American post-war debates on a first strike between Fat Man and RDS-1 is a little disturbing, really, and probably one of the biggest arguments I can think of in favour of MAD.  The biggest caveat I have is that, while MAD is peace after a fashion, it's an unstable equilibrium that fundamentally relies on the rationality of the actors and the ability to ensure that destruction - that is, you have to have something to target.  In a post-War era where the greatest threat comes from non-state, diffuse organizations rather than formal governments, it's in danger of becoming inadequate, which is perhaps a disturbing notion. 

[Aseaheru]

Slowpoke, I was thinking about sortof doing something like that (where there where three linked games, a command one, a government one and a design one) but I chickened out. That said, i am IN.

[Tsuchigumo550]

The biggest defense against a nuke is to be everywhere, without too many resources in one place.

MAD is obsolete the second the nukes stop firing, and that either happens when the warring countries die or they take the world down with them.

[misko27]

The biggest defense against a nuke is to be everywhere, without too many resources in one place.

MAD is obsolete the second the nukes stop firing, and that either happens when the warring countries die or they take the world down with them.

That doesn't really have to do with anything. That is basically the same thing as balance of power in world politics, except with nuclear fire. We certainly haven't had any world wars since nukes were invented, thus so far it seems more stable, no?

Yeah Culise, I've read the post 1945 "pre-emptive war" arguments, and it envisions a world quite unthinkable. In a world where nukes have no taboo, and where only one country has them, all balance of power arguments end. From a foreign-policy perspective, nukes are a perfect dream: no fuss, no soldiers lost, costs insignificant to that of maintaining a real army, no opposition except from pacifists; basically a war solver in a single-use. Inhumane, perhaps, but a real war isn't much better. Imagine if nukes could be used for any purpose, to solve any problem from USSR to Korea: North Vietnam would have yielded in a day, and if it hadn't, you could simply wipe them off the face of the earth; Napalm could kiss Nixon's ass. The US would have unparalleled dominance, over every country in every continent. Any serious war with the US would be outright suicide; better to simply surrender immediately and pray for safety.

Sure, it wouldn't be a cure-all, but in the early 40s the Taliban were nothing but dreams in a distant future, Al Queda unheard of (and possibly never to form, since the US would have simply nuked the USSR away, so no training for militants). Tsuchigimo, I have heard (but not totally confirmed, though I have run some numbers) that the US had, at least at one point, enough nuclear weapons to kill all people on earth: clearly dispersion is no obstacle. In a solely selfish rational POV, the US should have nuked Russia with all the (admittedly few) nukes they had at the time.

This discussion reminds me of a certain someone.

[10ebbor10]

In 1966 the US had 32,193 nuclear warheads/bombs in stockpile. From there one the amount dropped significantly, IIRC, because nuclear bombs were phased out for stronger nuclear warheads.

[Sheb]

I'm not so sure about it being beneificial to the US: nuclear fallout and winter would have been bad. Plus, if your goal is to actually control a country, nuking it doesn't help.

Anyway, I guess having large power with nukes is a good thing. Japan should probably get some.

[scrdest]

The biggest defense against a nuke is to be everywhere, without too many resources in one place.

MAD is obsolete the second the nukes stop firing, and that either happens when the warring countries die or they take the world down with them.

That doesn't really have to do with anything. That is basically the same thing as balance of power in world politics, except with nuclear fire. We certainly haven't had any world wars since nukes were invented, thus so far it seems more stable, no?

Yeah Culise, I've read the post 1945 "pre-emptive war" arguments, and it envisions a world quite unthinkable. In a world where nukes have no taboo, and where only one country has them, all balance of power arguments end. From a foreign-policy perspective, nukes are a perfect dream: no fuss, no soldiers lost, costs insignificant to that of maintaining a real army, no opposition except from pacifists; basically a war solver in a single-use. Inhumane, perhaps, but a real war isn't much better. Imagine if nukes could be used for any purpose, to solve any problem from USSR to Korea: North Vietnam would have yielded in a day, and if it hadn't, you could simply wipe them off the face of the earth; Napalm could kiss Nixon's ass. The US would have unparalleled dominance, over every country in every continent. Any serious war with the US would be outright suicide; better to simply surrender immediately and pray for safety.

Sure, it wouldn't be a cure-all, but in the early 40s the Taliban were nothing but dreams in a distant future, Al Queda unheard of (and possibly never to form, since the US would have simply nuked the USSR away, so no training for militants). Tsuchigimo, I have heard (but not totally confirmed, though I have run some numbers) that the US had, at least at one point, enough nuclear weapons to kill all people on earth: clearly dispersion is no obstacle. In a solely selfish rational POV, the US should have nuked Russia with all the (admittedly few) nukes they had at the time.

This discussion reminds me of a certain someone.

See, he problem is, US had no idea how many nukes did USSR have at the time - they overestimated the numbers quite a lot, and so the main reason they didn't attack was that they thought they would be pulverized in retaliation.

[Sergarr]

they overestimated the numbers quite a lot

Thanks to Soviet diplomats and spies.

EDIT: Wow, I fail at quoting.

[DJ]

I don't think the nukes could've made the world so nice for USA. Sure, no countries would be able to oppose it, but individuals are kinda hard to neutralize with nukes. If USA were to be such humongous assholes and nuke all who disagree with them, I reckon large scale terrorist attacks on US soil would be a daily occurrence.

[scrdest]

I don't think the nukes could've made the world so nice for USA. Sure, no countries would be able to oppose it, but individuals are kinda hard to neutralize with nukes. If USA were to be such humongous assholes and nuke all who disagree with them, I reckon large scale terrorist attacks on US soil would be a daily occurrence.

A NUKE FOR EACH TERRORIST! NUKE FOR THE NUKE GOD!