a. you were lied to
or
Destiny isn't older, it's just got really bad interior decorators
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
a. you were lied to
or
Destiny isn't older, it's just got really bad interior decorators
a race of mizzles ![]()
congrats
is also unclear what is so awesome about a guy running straight down a soccer field
The cartoonist who thought up "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" got a visit from the FBI who warned her of threats against her life, and on their advice she disappeared and got a new identity
one of our Supreme Court Justices went on the Today show and said that since Muslims riot if you burn a Koran it isn't protected speech, cause yelling Fire in a crowded theater isnt protected either
but burning our flag is ok
he had to backtrack a day later
so we like to see SOMEBODY saying that Muslim overreactions are crazy
I havent read it but I hear Robert Jordan never finished the series
generally i would read the prequel last so you understand it better
....has anybody seen Deci and Geert Wilders in the same room??
your just jealous that his hair is so rich and glossy without trying
MAD was not a goal, and nobody ever sets out to be caught in stalemate. MAD is not a balance of power. MAD is not peace.
MAD is the result of two competing offensive systems developed to the point that the political class does not feel an advantage even if they ordered a first-strike.
In other words, the USA, having developed the means to assault the Soviet Union by land, air and sea, was confronted by Soviet development of its own assault capability. In certain arms, like submarines, the United States was predominant. The USSR because of its political system had a better land arsenal. Neither the USA nor the USSR could report a satisfactory solution to the other's offensive power. Defensive systems were always rudimentary.
The ballistic missle submarines, the 24-hour aerially-refueled bombers, the rail-mounted ICBMS were NOT build with the idea "gee if we have this crap they cannot dare attack us". they were built to be used. Only after it became obvious that using them was going to be a coin toss, did the pinstripe pants start talking about MAD.
And what this led to was the development of global warfare, by 1st rank powers against 2nd rank powers and by 2nd rank powers against 2nd rank powers and by 3rd rank powers against 2nd rank powers and by 3rd rank powers against 3rd rank powers, without involving 1st rank powers against 1st rank powers. Global, conventional warfare of the sort that in 1914 and 1939 led to total world wars, was instead permitted to burn as low-key conflict.
If a 1st rank power says "ok now we have nuke subs, but we wont use them, because they are there to deter not assault" then other 1st rank powers can proceed to wage war on 2nd rank powers and 3rd rank powers, even those aligned with that other 1st rank power, as happened in the 1970s and 1980s. A strike against the other 1st rank power might be weighed, as the target may lack the balls to use its "deterrent" fleet even after being attacked. If you will not employ the offensive weapon no matter what, or rather, if you are PERCEIVED as being unwilling to employ the ultimate weapon, it has no deterrent value. It must be credible as an offensive force -- Strategic Air Command could have been over russia 2 hours after the Word was given, our Ohio boats could have launched in 30 mins. if it is supposed to ward off polar bears just by sitting there it will not impress anybody, like Clinton's F-18s buzzing the Serbs in Kosovo.
and I don't see how arguing "correlation doesn't equate to causation" promotes a theory as more "rational" than the historical record
>>Why? Deterrence is a purely defensive strategy, claiming that if an opponent fires nuclear weapons, they will respond with their own weapons. In a world where all nuclear weapons are deterrence-tooled weapons, the world is actually quite safe because mutually assured destruction is guaranteed.<<
On the contrary, such a posture would open the world to widespread conventional warfare. the 1970s, which were the era of greatest goodwill between NATO and Warsaw Pact, was quite explosive.
>>For deterrence to be effective, both leaders must have the understanding that each side fears the weapons of the other side. If Britain is fielding offensive weapons which are able to nullify the opponent's capability to launch a second strike, Britain has nothing to fear from Russian nuclear weapons.<<
No. For deterrence to be effective, one side's independent offense must have a capability to do damage to the other side. At the point where, say, China has the power to cripple the US Pacific fleet in combat with the Chinese mainland, the US is deterred from policies that might inflame a Chinese response. There may, or may not, be a contrary deterrent of Chinese aggression out of respect for US combat potential. There is no "mutual" deterrence, just concurrent and opposite deterrence.
>>In any realist interpretation of politics, a nation with the capability to first strike their opponent would do exactly that.<<
Realistically quite the opposite.
>>Knowing this, Russia's only chance for survival is a last ditch effort at a near-suicidal first strike against Britain, or at the very least operating under a high-alert status that risks triggering accidental nuclear wars. <<
Unless of course Russia knows that Britain has a totally defensive posture, in which case, Russia can declare for the greatest nuclear drawdown in world history, and at the same time, invade and partition its neighbors with conventional forces, without opposition from the UK.
>>At the point where a nuclear weapon no longer provides a stable deterrent force, assuming those weapons are not intended for any first strike plans, what is their use?<<
Strategic bombardment of the enemy, first, last, second, in between, post-armistice, what have you.
If the UK is at all interested in fighting Russia, I mean in any circumstance including retaliating for a Russian first strike it should not care about "destabilizing deterrence" by maintaining offensive weapons
if it has no interest in fighting Russia whatsoever, there is no deterrence no matter what it builds
if the UK is a nuclear threat to our enemies, our enemies have to spread their payload to cover the UK too
quite possibly he does not understand the complex situation he adamantly describes
or he does understand global warming and that shows how silly it is
since our govt is now WNBA its hard to argue that the UK should be joining us
ummm...guess it helps for UK to have nukes so it gets nuked too? the nukes dropped on UK could have been dropped on USA
the way Tupac addressed Biggie in "Hit Em Up"?
has knowledge of the biological transmogrification process exceeded only by his zest for kung fu treachery
Is there a time portal?
"Isn't it all a bit academic anyway? I have heard (from non-credible sources) that the UK cannot launch nukes without getting certain launch codes from the USA or relies on the USA in other ways to support the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent (don't know why this would be, but anyone know if there is any truth in it?). "
I heard that was true back in the day before you guys built your own. You could carry US nukes but we got the codes.
wb einstein
Id be suspicious of France, myself, but I guess neither Vanguard or Trident helps you there
you could threaten a common market wtih Algeria and Turkey as a deterrent against France
well sure
any Chinese general who'd want to waste nukes on the UK would be denounced for corruption
well little miss "im too tired to click the links" you didnt even POST LINKS, I had to type the urls out! Boy am i exhausted! whiiiiine
i think i was trying to say READ THE LINKS
depends on whether you trust Russia not to bomb you, deterrent or not
if they slag you 30 billion pounds won't make a dent in your recovery
If you hang out with people you don't learn as many tricks to calculating stuff and you score worse on intelligence tests
like a real genius could deduce the relationship of the sum of the square of the hypotenuse to the sum of the square of the two sides
most people just learn it and comprehend it and apply it
same thing with solving logic puzzles, if you are focused and dont know how to draw the key you could still do it, but its easier if you know how to solve them.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.