Armageddon Ahoy! Nuclear weapons to deter nuclear weapons!

[lostexpectation]

what was this last wek about france selling nuclear technology to half the world?

[jjcarroll]

Interestingly, the Russians made a far more stark comment about their policy on the use of nuclear weapons in anticipatory self-defence last weekend.

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/19844

[Aindriu]

We've been there before. The entire nuclear strategy of the Cold War was based on the M.A.D. theory i.e Mutually Assured Destruction. The same applies now. It is only by showing that you have nuclear weapons and are prepared to use them in a pre-emptive strike that you can keep a lid on them. Anyone remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is exactly what Kennedy threatened Kruschev with and the Soviets blinked first.

And the world was moments from a nuclear winter. What if the russian were as stubborn as the yanks? Is it any kind of security to be MADder than the enemy?

What kind of logic is that?
You can't have nukes because you might use them, and in order to prevent you from getting them, we're going to nuke you.

What option did Kennedy have? If he had backed down Kruschev would have seen it as a weakness and anything could have followed. He already thought Kennedy was weak so Kennedy had to take a stand. Moreover, the USSR already had nukes so your comment is irrelevant really.

[badinage]

Exactly! NATO knew that they had 3 days of conventional battlefield warfare to play with. After that, if the Soviets supply lines had not been disrupted, NATO would have had to resort to tactical, limited theatre nukes - in otherwords, battlefield nukes, so goodnight Germany.

Which is why the Germans had conscription and maintained a ridiculously large army, far larger than the British one

[A guy called Dave]

If anyone can suggest how to un-invent nukes then I'm all ears.

[Gimpanzee]

If anyone can suggest how to un-invent nukes then I'm all ears.

Lets kill all the folks who read stuff

[Aindriu]

Exactly! NATO knew that they had 3 days of conventional battlefield warfare to play with. After that, if the Soviets supply lines had not been disrupted, NATO would have had to resort to tactical, limited theatre nukes - in otherwords, battlefield nukes, so goodnight Germany.

Which is why the Germans had conscription and maintained a ridiculously large army, far larger than the British one

Indeed. The DDR army was effectively canon fodder for the USSR. The main troops that followed behind would have been 1st & 3rd Guards Shock Army.

[lostexpectation]

sarah conner tried it it didn't work turns out heisenburg was a terminator...

[L'Chaim]

I was wondering why the US were really pushing for Israel to be allowed become part of NATO. Maybe they would like Israel to do what the other member would be afraid to do, like pre-emptive strikes.

[Akrasia]

We've been there before. The entire nuclear strategy of the Cold War was based on the M.A.D. theory i.e Mutually Assured Destruction. The same applies now. It is only by showing that you have nuclear weapons and are prepared to use them in a pre-emptive strike that you can keep a lid on them. Anyone remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is exactly what Kennedy threatened Kruschev with and the Soviets blinked first.

And the world was moments from a nuclear winter. What if the russian were as stubborn as the yanks? Is it any kind of security to be MADder than the enemy?

What kind of logic is that?
You can't have nukes because you might use them, and in order to prevent you from getting them, we're going to nuke you.

What option did Kennedy have?

He could have compromised and removed the nukes that America had pointing straight at Moscow in exchange for a demilitarisation of Cuba.

If he had backed down Kruschev would have seen it as a weakness and anything could have followed. He already thought Kennedy was weak so Kennedy had to take a stand. Moreover, the USSR already had nukes so your comment is irrelevant really.

I am not personally prepared to suffer nuclear armageddon just to avoid a U.S. president 'looking weak'
My point was that acting more violent and more insane than the enemy (that you claim to oppose because they are violent and insane) only makes the risk of a nuclear engagement even more likely. Maybe the next time Russia won't back down because they don't want to appear weak for a second time (a likelyhood not helped by the fact that the U.S. have been gloating about winning the Cuba standoff for the last 40 years)