User Controls
north korean conflict
-
2020-09-23 at 11:11 AM UTCIt doesn't matter who does or doesn't have them - the moment someone actually uses them there is no longer any trust that they're held to a different standard to regular weapons and countries WILL use them as a first strike because they don't want to catch one before they have a chance to pop their own off.
As it stands there's a clear protocol for the use of nuclear weapons (even though it's being degraded and made more vague), so they're more effective as a threat than an actual weapon. -
2020-09-23 at 11:15 AM UTCThe idea of the USSR responding to tactical nukes in China in the 1950s with escalation of their own is fantasy.
-
2020-09-23 at 11:20 AM UTCnobody said it'd immediately trigger a nuclear response, it'd simply remove the preconditions of nuclear posture and make it likely they'd show up early in ANY conflict after that point
-
2020-09-23 at 11:24 AM UTCwait sorry I'll reread when I'm more sober
not sure how much sense that madeThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-09-23 at 11:29 AM UTCYou always make sense, even when it makes no sense to me. If that makes sense.
What are you buzzing on? I miss drugs sometimes. It's too bad you can't just casually get them from the supermarket for a nice stay at home friday. -
2020-09-23 at 11:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by rabbitweed The idea of the USSR responding to tactical nukes in China in the 1950s with escalation of their own is fantasy.
I just don't think it would be all "and then the us nuked em and wrapped it all up with a nice little bow"
It would have escalated for sure. Maybe not a soviet nuclear response but it would have changed the calculus. To think it wouldnt seems naive. But these are just counterfactuals and we can never rly know. -
2020-09-23 at 11:32 AM UTC
-
2020-09-23 at 11:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil I just don't think it would be all "and then the us nuked em and wrapped it all up with a nice little bow"
It would have escalated for sure. Maybe not a soviet nuclear response but it would have changed the calculus. To think it wouldnt seems naive. But these are just counterfactuals and we can never rly know.
Yeah we never truly can. Treaty of versailles is another good one. I can never decide if they were too harsh on Germany, or not harsh enough. -
2020-09-23 at 11:34 AM UTC
-
2020-09-23 at 2:45 PM UTCThere's really no question that asking to use nukes in Korea was a reasonable request. I mean if it's a war why not bring out your weapons? It's logical.
OTOH politicians wanted to keep the nukes for themselves and not share them with the generals. And the politicians weren't prepared to go all Genghis Khan in order to win some war they didn't really even care about - especially since bringing out the nukes would render all the expensive Military Industrial Complex stuff like the tanks and helicopters and artillery and bombs irrelevant.
So the decision is a pissing match, not a contemplation of pros and cons. -
2020-09-23 at 2:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by rabbitweed There is zero credible evidence that's what he did.
I saw a video of him doing that. The state released it I guess it wasin a hotel and the camera was at the opposite ens of the hallway. He admitted to it, he took a poster, whether he deserved to die for it or not he definitely did it. -
2020-09-23 at 3:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by rabbitweed Why are far right people praising communist dictatorships. It's truly bizarre.
The Korean war would have been won if McArthur had been allowed to use tactical nukes on China. Then you would have had a unified Korean peninsular under a capitalist government and it would have kicked ass.
Couldn't you like at least look at the flow of people between the two sides to see which one might be the better place to live?
why dont you just go to singapore and spray grafitty over there insulting their dead lee kuan yew and see what staunch US ally and democracy loving chinks would do to you. -
2020-09-24 at 5:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra wait sorry I'll reread when I'm more sober
not sure how much sense that made
What I meant to say was that nuclear weapons stop being effective as a threat or deterrent once someone uses them.
Among the countries that have them there's in most cases a tacit agreement (and in other cases, like israel or Pakistan, an implied agreement) that they're only to be used in the most dire of circumstances - during the cold war both the US and Soviets agreed that nuclear weapons would not be used as in a first strike and would not be used in response to conventional weapons attack unless the state faced an existential threat (this is being dangerously eroded now but it's not so relevant).
Knowing under what conditions your enemy or competitor may use nuclear weapons allows you to plan strategies that avoid nuclear (or I guess biochemical) escalation.
Once a state uses nuclear weapons outside of this framework, all bets are off. There is no longer any trust that others will show restraint so minor conventional conflicts risk escalating straight to nuclear exchange because you have no idea what will trigger your opponent to start dropping nuclear weapons on you. So you try to pre-empt that.
