11–20 of 75 posts
> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
It does seem more than a little strange that the president has to battle with congress to get a law passed providing easier access to healthcare for people, but if they want to wipe out a good chunk of humanity then that's their prerogative.
http://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/26/u-s-airlines-use-two-cr...
> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
If you add more than a couple minutes of delay, it's no longer an effective deterrent. Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated.
The logic of nuclear deterrence still holds, and in fact deterrence should be stronger since your opponents know you have absolutely no other choices.
> The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being checked by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you add more than a couple minutes of delay, it's no longer an effective deterrent. Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated. The lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you add more than a couple minutes of delay, it's no longer an effective deterrent. Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated. The lo…
Then a country with conventional army and nukes would be able to attack you without using nukes and threat nuclear retaliation if you use nukes. It's rational to choose occupation over nuclear apocalypse, so you surrender (or he expects you to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you add more than a couple minutes of delay, it's no longer an effective deterrent. Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons. The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated. The lo…
Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland.
But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"?
It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. A murderer will know you'll take him down with you, but a robber can safely assume you will give up your wallet rather than blow yourself up. (Unless he fears you might be completely insane - hence Nixon's "madman theory".)
There's a fantastic clip from Yes, Minister about this very scenario - I'll see if I can find it and link it later.