FLIG 11:06 Thu Nov 19
The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
|
1) If you have a nuclear deterrent and the prime minister (or whoever) presses the button to launch the nuclear missiles first, then you are the aggressor ie its not being used as a deterrent.
2) If you have a nuclear deterrent (as above)............presses the button to launch the nuclear missiles second, in response to an attack, then the nuclear capability has hardly been a deterrent!
Discuss!
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
AfM
11:12 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Mike Oxsaw 10:57 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
What he said.
|
Mike Oxsaw
10:57 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
"Modern" Nuclear deterrent is actually based on early 19th century philosophies that assume that the enemy of a state can only be another state (on account of the cost and complexity of developing & deploying such weapons).
Advancements in science don't just mean you can get the latest smart-phone before any other cunt, it advanced in other areas, too. "Poor" countries like India & Pakistan can now afford to join the nuclear club of their own accord, as, it looks likely can Iran. Where Israel got the money to build their own nuclear arsenal is beyond me: can't just be through growing & selling olives & oranges.
As such it does SEEM to have acted as a deterrent - certainly no nuclear capable state has had a serious war with another similarly armed state - yet.
But technology, and an unexpected willing by some to offensively sacrifice oneself "for the greater cause" has created a dilemma - or rather several dilemmas.
The technology has allowed the development of nuclear devices to tend towards "plug-&-play" construction, where much can be done with "off-the-shelf" components originally designed for a completely different purpose. Similarly, that same technology has reduced the mass of such weapons that they can be mounted and delivered in something no bigger than a Transit van or Land Cruiser.
Additionally, it was believed that anyone using nuclear weapons would do so from a distance safe enough such that their detonation did not adversely affect them: these days it seems there are an adequate supply of people to drive a nuclear armed road vehicle to it's delivery point and "die for the cause" setting it off.
And a nuclear explosion doesn't even mean a big, fuck-off, Hollywood-style flash-bang-wallop to meet it's aims; dirty bombs are just as effective - probably more so as once detonated, those contaminated will always spend some of their thoughts asking "Was I affected? Will I die??"
Trident & ICBMs are no deterrent against such an enemy (and if states & nations can temper their aggression at that level can probably be dispensed with - although that's still a fairly large IF).
What is the answer? Fucked if I know. Fucked if I even know where to start, if I'm honest.
Being an engineer by trade, I'd try some sort of "root-cause analysis" on the subject but the best I can come up with is trying to convince everybody that "the cause", THEIR "cause" is futile and therefore not worth sacrificing your/their own life for. At least disrupt the delivery mechanism if not the weapon production.
HOW to achieve that probably requires a little more effort in the thinking department.
I leave that up to the great & good of WHO.
|
Russ of the BML
10:03 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
It's not a paradox. It's a deterrent.
As Durley Massive said no one fires a missile at someone else as they have Star Wars systems that immediately fire one back at the location the first one if fired.
Therefore, you don't fire one through fear of getting one back. Deterrent.
In simple terms in the playground a kid won't hit a big kid through fear of getting hit back harder.
|
Baggins
9:42 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Surely the point is that number 2 doesn't happen in the fitst place?
Also, why do people always assume that nukes can only ever be used to blow up entire nations? Thats not the case.
|
ray winstone
9:02 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Poor old Germany and Japan, no psychological deterrent, it's really fucked them up hasn't it.....
|
geoffpikey
8:58 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
It's an old idea, IMO. World War III - and that's now what it is - will be fought with surveillance, counter intelligence, and forces on the ground to take out the tiny minority of mad individuals who continue to fuck up the world.
Can't ever see a massive nuclear missile attack, even from N Korea. Thus it is pointless money, loads of it, spent.
Maybe just lie and say we have the option. And put the money to better use elsewhere.
Does this mean I like Jeremy Corbyn? Oh, no!
|
ManorParkHammer
8:55 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Using the word paradox in a thread title nearly deterred me from opening this thread and calling you a cunt.
|
The Cult Of Bob
4:42 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
The use of the power to hurt as bargaining power is the foundation of deterrence theory.
|
Hammer and Pickle
12:10 Fri Nov 20
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Clacton wouldn't even notice.
|
Nurse Ratched
11:58 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Maybe they all hit Jaywick and we just didn't notice.
|
Dapablo
11:56 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
There have had no intercontinental missiles fired at us therefore we have a deterent, that or no-ones wanted to fire one.
|
Nurse Ratched
11:53 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Hang on, let me fetch my pince-nez...
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:48 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Incoming misguided missiles.
|
Mr Polite
11:45 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
You can see my missile if you like
Giggerty
Sorry for being crude
|
Nurse Ratched
11:40 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
No one want to see crude missiles.
|
charleyfarley
11:36 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
when is a deterrent not a deterrent?
ans:- when it's not a deterrent
|
,
11:34 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
It ceases to be a deterrent when one is fired.
The other thing is that it is only a deterrent to other rationally lead nation states. I am sure that entities like ISIS have never been considered [ until very recent times ] when Generals and politicians have played doomsday scenario war games.
We are already worried about ISIS getting hold of chemical weapons God forbid it gets hold of a nuke. And where do you nuke in retaliation?
|
FLIG
11:27 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
kylay 11:19 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
I was thinking more along the lines of br'er rabbit and the briar patch.
If there aren't any weapons launched at all then it's arguablyI a deterrent. You have set up a false dichotomy like staying up or sacking allardyce
Sorry kylay but you are wrong. Its not a dichotomy (look the meaning up)
|
Schoffie
11:25 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Not as simple as that nowadays. 50s, 60s big bombs and crude missiles. Tactical nukes would be used 1st would imagine, a battlefield retreat or decimate a small town where Isis are huddling up..
|
Darlo Debs
11:20 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
Well I stopped after a bit as my daughter wanted a deep and meaningful chat about religion,
|
kylay
11:19 Thu Nov 19
Re: The deterrent paradox (when is a deterrent not a deterrent)
|
I was thinking more along the lines of br'er rabbit and the briar patch.
If there aren't any weapons launched at all then it's arguablyI a deterrent. You have set up a false dichotomy like staying up or sacking allardyce
|
| 
