I told a friend to give me a better suggestion than nuclear deterrence, a safer and human-error free method of ensuring that one country doesn't just nuke another. This was his response.
>Anyway, we seem to be doing fine defending ourselves. Our geography does a lot of that. In fact, we are probably the reason any other country feels the need to develop nuclear weapons, being that we stick our nose into everyone's business.
>Given our sheer military size, nuclear weaponry seems ridiculous, costly, and of course, risky
Give me a solid argument? It's a friendly debate, but I want something with more facts than logic to throw at him.
>>29392872
We're in the US if you couldn't figure.
>>29392872
>our geography defends us
Explain to him how water does not defend against ICBMs.
>>29392872
MAD is a really shitty and stupid system where you don't really have checks. We have a fair more valuable system of deterrence now anyway. Economic. We're all so globally linked hurting even the smallest producer can have catastrophic setbacks.
>>29392872
Having the ability to flatten any of your OPFOR cities with 30 minutes or less trumps literally everything.
What is an army worth if it can be nothing but dust before a single bullet can be fired?
>>29393167
>>29393194
>>29393223
His new subtopic is "Its more of a "this is fucking unnecessary" viewpoint.
Look, I understand where you're coming from. We already dug ourselves in a hole, so there's no point in arguing whether or not it was stupid to do so. What I'm saying is, can we at least try not to dig the hole even further?
One slip up and we are fucked. And I'm not even talking about war being started, I'm talking about a dumbass and an accident. Why do we need this many warheads? Why does anyone?
I realize we already crossed the line, so I can understand that we cannot get rid of all of them. What is YOUR argument, exactly?"
>>29393194
Hilariously opinion, lurk the nuclear threads more.
>>29393247
>One slip up and we are fucked.
Which is why we don't defund the nuclear weapons programs. They aren't developing new ones, they are maintaining the ones we already have.
>>29393249
*hilarious
Damn phone.
>>29393249
Great spelling learn economics. While there are a few of the top contenders who can and would produce for themselves, it would be a rough start and the citizens would be in an uproar. Economic powers are far more useful now than nukes. Most nuke tech while still functional would be the world equivalent of a herpes sore. Plus you can do far more economic bargaining without setting off the doomsday clock than you can with nukes. Sure you can posture with nukes, but the reality of the situation is there is no real moment for them, but the last moment and the first strike capabilities while important sure as hell aren't gonna be the bargaining chip you think. Nukes also debalance power struggles by setting the stakes much higher. Look at Israel, they are a pillar that can only be hurt through asymmetric warfare or else risk the end game of nukes
>>29393247
Well, does he have any citations for his opinion? Other then guesswork on his part?
>>29393299
Oh I know it's all guesswork.
He's a bernie supporter strictly because he hopes to get free college for his HOLD ON
Art degree
. Didn't give a shit about politics until Bernie showed up.
we need more nukes.
fuck the treaty.
and not just more, but more powerful ones as well.
and bring back programs like the davy crockett and tactical nuclear weapons in general.
we are becoming a weak nation who relies on bureaucratic bullshit to win wars.
why does everyone hate nukes so much?
if you can't turn the world into a flaming and irradiated wasteland, why are you a superpower?
Nuclear Weaponry keeps major large scale conflict completely obsolete. We won't EVER get into a war with China or Russia or Europe or any other Nuclear capable country because we both know that doing so puts the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD is the reason the Cold War didn't turn hot, Cause the USSR wasn't gonna throw its life away for no reason. Making the case that Communism is better than Capitalism is just not worth destroying eachother's country.
We don't keep our Nuclear Arms because they are tactically important or good weapons, but because everyone else has Nuclear Arms or is Allied to someone with Nuclear Arms. We all exist in the same room, and that room has a button that kills everybody in the room, we can all swear to not use the button that means death to everyone and everything, but do you really want to take that chance and start fights with people when you know you can turn a minor disagreement into a genocide?
at the very least, we should keep enough Nukes to destroy the world and nothing more, because honestly we don't need anymore than that ATM
>>29393363
There's about 71 years of academic work backing nuclear theory.
Tell him to read a book before forming an opinion.
>>29393291
You say contradicting things and I'm not sure how to respond.
But does economics offer more flexibility because it doesn't cross a certain threshold? Sure.
But does it give a greater deterrent than a kinetic use of force? No.
I'll put it simply:
anyone who hasn't read Kahn doesn't have an opinion worth listening to. The end.
>>29392872
get your own fuckin argument
>>29392872
>just
>get rid of all the nukes
>just
>get rid of all the guns
You cannot actually get rid of everything.
You cannot get rid of knowledge.
Don't be so anti-technological. You can't reclose the box.
>>29395342
my mom says i can do anything i put my mind to
>>29392872
>need
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>29392872
>Give me a solid argument?
Ask him can he see all this cities and clean air and sky above? Tell him, that it is because WWIII didn't happened. It didn't happen because of nukes. People solve their problems by diplomacy and proxy-wars instead of bombing each others. India and Pakistan used to fight each other every 5-10 years. They get nukes and now they are in some kind of peace. War is bad. Big war is very bad. Nukes prevent big wars from happening. Nuclear arsenal of US is not as large as it used to be. And it's not costly as it used to be.
>>29393247
nuclear weapons acknowledge our faults. our failures.
consider the circumstances in which nukes are employed; decades of tension, proxy conflict and blatant/immediate failure to deescalate. conventional means have failed us. and ah, look up to see those streaks cutting through the sky, and graciously thank policy makers for avoiding accommodation, for evading concession, and for escalating petty socioeconomic qualms to our annihilation. and we'll quietly pass into dust like god knows how many civilizations in our universe, past and future. nukes are just an ultimate extension of policy.
your friend is an idealist. we are fragile, surface dwelling lifeforms. 99%+ of all species have passed into extinction with hardly a trace that they existed at all. why should we be so different. i think it's wonderful that we've come so far as to dictate our own demise, on our own very terms. it's a beautifully elegant end, to bring the power of the sun to kill one another, in the same process that birthed the heavy atoms we've by chance acquired to build the fragile ships we call bodies. total annihilation is a perfectly fine way to die. your friend needs to find something to die for, before he dies. embrace the shit, /k/, because you're old and senile before you have time to go down fighting. it's just another series of moments away
