why so many missiles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This scares me even more. navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy-uav-enters-dc-082510/

Robots will take over.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy-uav-enters-dc-082510/

[Anonymous]

I highly recommend watching the following:

http://www.nucleartippingpoint.org/

This topic is sadly overshadowed by so many other issues today, but all of these elder statesmen believe it will come back to haunt us.

[TheManWithAUsername]

jsteele wrote:Whether it makes sense or not, the only thing our nuclear missiles have been used for is bargaining chips.

Well, that's just another way of saying that we've never had a nuclear war. I meant that it doesn't make any sense for them to have been just bargaining chips, with no real value.

The poster right after you (make us have usernames, Jeff!), who I suppose is (?) the PP, gave a pretty good explanation for the build-up. Given how late it went, I'm inclined it was also fueled by the M/I complex. In the treaties, the bargaining may have been largely for face saving.

That still leaves us with the question of why we still have so many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There actually is an answer to this question, Mr. Steele. Nuclear strategy is a well-developed body of thought. The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter, never to be used. In order to deter, you need the ability to retaliate in the event that anyone attacks you first. Given how devastating a nuclear first strike would be, you need to have enough nuclear missiles to ensure that a sufficient number survive to preserve a second-strike capacity. So, you need more of them than you might think, it depends on your assumptions regarding how effective a first strike would be based on the size, accuracy, etc. of the enemy warheads. You *could* avoid this problem by launching your retaliatory strike before the first strike arrives, but if that were the strategy we'd probably all be dead by now, due to false alarms. The certainty of a robust second-strike capability is a stabilizing feature that goes a long way toward preventing a nuclear war.

What a load of crap. You can't possibly have studied this in school, or you would know how many mistakes we made in nuclear deterrence. The evidence is in the record. All you have to do is to read presidential campaign history from the 1950's through 1960 to know that. Certainly the fact that we can achieve deterrence on a fraction of our past levels says that we were wrong before.

I can't think of a single person involved in arms negotiation who would call this a "well developed body of thought". You are a fraud.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There actually is an answer to this question, Mr. Steele. Nuclear strategy is a well-developed body of thought. The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter, never to be used. In order to deter, you need the ability to retaliate in the event that anyone attacks you first. Given how devastating a nuclear first strike would be, you need to have enough nuclear missiles to ensure that a sufficient number survive to preserve a second-strike capacity. So, you need more of them than you might think, it depends on your assumptions regarding how effective a first strike would be based on the size, accuracy, etc. of the enemy warheads. You *could* avoid this problem by launching your retaliatory strike before the first strike arrives, but if that were the strategy we'd probably all be dead by now, due to false alarms. The certainty of a robust second-strike capability is a stabilizing feature that goes a long way toward preventing a nuclear war.

What a load of crap. You can't possibly have studied this in school, or you would know how many mistakes we made in nuclear deterrence. The evidence is in the record. All you have to do is to read presidential campaign history from the 1950's through 1960 to know that. Certainly the fact that we can achieve deterrence on a fraction of our past levels says that we were wrong before.

I can't think of a single person involved in arms negotiation who would call this a "well developed body of thought". You are a fraud.

I don't claim to be an expert, and I don't know whether the strategy described by the first PP is "correct", but it looks to me to be what we followed, or what we wanted the USSR to believe we were following. Even if first PP and I are wrong, you might try substance rather than insult to disabuse us of our error.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There actually is an answer to this question, Mr. Steele. Nuclear strategy is a well-developed body of thought. The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter, never to be used. In order to deter, you need the ability to retaliate in the event that anyone attacks you first. Given how devastating a nuclear first strike would be, you need to have enough nuclear missiles to ensure that a sufficient number survive to preserve a second-strike capacity. So, you need more of them than you might think, it depends on your assumptions regarding how effective a first strike would be based on the size, accuracy, etc. of the enemy warheads. You *could* avoid this problem by launching your retaliatory strike before the first strike arrives, but if that were the strategy we'd probably all be dead by now, due to false alarms. The certainty of a robust second-strike capability is a stabilizing feature that goes a long way toward preventing a nuclear war.

What a load of crap. You can't possibly have studied this in school, or you would know how many mistakes we made in nuclear deterrence. The evidence is in the record. All you have to do is to read presidential campaign history from the 1950's through 1960 to know that. Certainly the fact that we can achieve deterrence on a fraction of our past levels says that we were wrong before.

I can't think of a single person involved in arms negotiation who would call this a "well developed body of thought". You are a fraud.

I don't claim to be an expert, and I don't know whether the strategy described by the first PP is "correct", but it looks to me to be what we followed, or what we wanted the USSR to believe we were following. Even if first PP and I are wrong, you might try substance rather than insult to disabuse us of our error.

I did, in another post (16:47), which does provide information about the limits of our understanding of nuclear deterrence. I was addressing the condescending nature of this post separately.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Usernames!

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Usernames!

Yes, I am watching your experiment to see whether it is a net positive or negative.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Usernames!

Yes! You are still as anonymous as you want to be, but at least we know from post to post that you are the same person, and this new post is not, for example, someone parodying you.

All you have to do is click HOME in the menu bar at the top of the page, and look above the menu bar on that page for the Log in link or the Register link, and then remember to log in when you come back after being away. Jeff, it would help if each page told us whether we are logged in; sometimes I post and find I have lost my identity.

[TheManWithAUsername]

anonymous wrote:Yes, I am watching your experiment to see whether it is a net positive or negative.

I think it's a wash, maybe slightly negative for me individually. The negatives:
- if I have a grumpy, stupid, whatever moment, it stays with me forever
- easy target - there's a woman following me around in other forums here right now calling me a jerk

On the positive side, people are more likely to understand whether I'm serious, ironic, joking...

For the community, though, it's a clear plus. I did it b/c I was complaining about the anonymity, and someone challenged me to be part of the solution.

takoma wrote:Jeff, it would help if each page told us whether we are logged in; sometimes I post and find I have lost my identity.

I just keep the window open.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I just keep the window open.

Careful, you may get wet!
(For those who don't already know, I have a tendency toward juvenile humor.)

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Usernames!

Yes! You are still as anonymous as you want to be, but at least we know from post to post that you are the same person, and this new post is not, for example, someone parodying you.

All you have to do is click HOME in the menu bar at the top of the page, and look above the menu bar on that page for the Log in link or the Register link, and then remember to log in when you come back after being away. Jeff, it would help if each page told us whether we are logged in; sometimes I post and find I have lost my identity.

It's not the anonymity that is the issue, I realize that. It is the ad hominem attacks. The site is prone to ad hominem attacks. That's generally OK if the comments are all related and within one thread. But say for example I comment on a religion thread and say that I am an atheist (this is not actually true for me). Then I will have that thrown back at me on any number of posts as a cheap means to dismiss my points. In the real world, ad hominem attacks are addressable because those who use them also have real identities and reputations to defend. But when the mud flingers are anonymous, there is no way to beat it back.

I do think that there would be greater civility, even if people were required to log in under anonymous user names. People naturally feel a desire to protect their reputations, even if those reputations are disconnected from real life identity. But there would also be less site traffic. It's a tradeoff that I'm sure Jeff has thought about.

I'll watch and see how you and some of the others do.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I do think that there would be greater civility, even if people were required to log in under anonymous user names. People naturally feel a desire to protect their reputations, even if those reputations are disconnected from real life identity. But there would also be less site traffic. It's a tradeoff that I'm sure Jeff has thought about.

Someone here also pointed out to me that it's too small a world, so you could be identified by your posts under certain circumstances. Then the person you work well with on the PTA might find out you're a neo-Nazi or something.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that there would be greater civility, even if people were required to log in under anonymous user names. People naturally feel a desire to protect their reputations, even if those reputations are disconnected from real life identity. But there would also be less site traffic. It's a tradeoff that I'm sure Jeff has thought about.

Someone here also pointed out to me that it's too small a world, so you could be identified by your posts under certain circumstances. Then the person you work well with on the PTA might find out you're a neo-Natzi or something.

I hadn't thought of that. Now that you mention it, it's obvious to me who you are. I'm a man and I have a user name; you must be me. Especially since I agree with just about everything you say. And given my dumb sense of humor, that name of yours is exactly the sort of thing I would make up.

Okay, I admit I know that's not the case, and you and Jeff know it too. But who else would be gullible enough to believe this paragraph and not the previous one?

[TheManWithAUsername]

takoma wrote:I hadn't thought of that. Now that you mention it, it's obvious to me who you are. I'm a man and I have a user name; you must be me. Especially since I agree with just about everything you say. And given my dumb sense of humor, that name of yours is exactly the sort of thing I would make up.

Okay, I admit I know that's not the case, and you and Jeff know it too. But who else would be gullible enough to believe this paragraph and not the previous one?

Actually, at least one person here thinks I am Jeff.

Another benefit of a screen name: you get to edit posts, like I just did for my "Nazi" typo.