SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yeah, that's what I said Try again. The idea that having 350 nuclear warheads makes us the "little guy" is what's laughable, along with the idea that the only thing that counts in military "muscle" is nuclear weapons. You're off by multiples of 10. Others are similarly off the mark in their estimations. The correct number of warheads is 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think we only really need just one to work. Ha, maybe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Yeah, that's what I said Try again. The idea that having 350 nuclear warheads makes us the "little guy" is what's laughable, along with the idea that the only thing that counts in military "muscle" is nuclear weapons. You are making the assumption that 350 is enough. I on the otherhand admit that I have no clue what is or isn't enough. So yeah, that's what you said. along with the idea that the only thing that counts in military "muscle" is nuclear weapons. Yeah, like I said that. Dude, go back and like study or pick up comprehension skills or something. Edited February 15, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You are making the assumption that 350 is enough. I on the otherhand admit that I have no clue what is or isn't enough. So yeah, that's what you said. That gets back to the whole "strategy" thing I mentioned. What are you going to do with them, against who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 That gets back to the whole "strategy" thing I mentioned. What are you going to do with them, against who? I dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You are making the assumption that 350 is enough. I on the otherhand admit that I have no clue what is or isn't enough. So yeah, that's what you said. "Enough" depends on the loss aversion of our enemies, you should know that, Magox. Personally, if I were Commander in Chief, I'm willing to absorb 2 or 3 tactical nuclear weapons strikes on U.S. metropolitan areas or military installations. Thusly, it will take 2.5 nuclear weapons to deter me from total war on another nation. Putin, however, likely has a higher threshold for nuclear strikes, given that everything in Russia is pretty crapp anyways. So for Russia, the number needed to deter Putin from war with the U.S. may be more like 9 or 10. Kim Jong Il claimed it would take 50 nuclear missile strikes just to wake him up from his afternoon nap, but something tells me that number is exaggerated and closer to 23, given the relatively small size of North Korea. No we have to consider individual loss aversion in a coalition sense. A portfolio, if you will, of nations hell bent on war with the U.S., and we must test all scenarios. The base scenario suggest it will take 350 nuclear weapons to deter a coalition consisting of the Middle East, most of Africa, Canada and Mexico. In the extreme case, where all other 192 U.N. recognized nations attack the United States, the number is actually 1,790, the current level of nuclear deployment. These numbers don't just happen by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) "Enough" depends on the loss aversion of our enemies, you should know that, Magox. Personally, if I were Commander in Chief, I'm willing to absorb 2 or 3 tactical nuclear weapons strikes on U.S. metropolitan areas or military installations. Thusly, it will take 2.5 nuclear weapons to deter me from total war on another nation. Putin, however, likely has a higher threshold for nuclear strikes, given that everything in Russia is pretty crapp anyways. So for Russia, the number needed to deter Putin from war with the U.S. may be more like 9 or 10. Kim Jong Il claimed it would take 50 nuclear missile strikes just to wake him up from his afternoon nap, but something tells me that number is exaggerated and closer to 23, given the relatively small size of North Korea. No we have to consider individual loss aversion in a coalition sense. A portfolio, if you will, of nations hell bent on war with the U.S., and we must test all scenarios. The base scenario suggest it will take 350 nuclear weapons to deter a coalition consisting of the Middle East, most of Africa, Canada and Mexico. In the extreme case, where all other 192 U.N. recognized nations attack the United States, the number is actually 1,790, the current level of nuclear deployment. These numbers don't just happen by accident. Do you think the ones in the know took into account that some might not work when they light the fuses? Edited February 15, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 "Enough" depends on the loss aversion of our enemies, you should know that, Magox. Personally, if I were Commander in Chief, I'm willing to absorb 2 or 3 tactical nuclear weapons strikes on U.S. metropolitan areas or military installations. Thusly, it will take 2.5 nuclear weapons to deter me from total war on another nation. Putin, however, likely has a higher threshold for nuclear strikes, given that everything in Russia is pretty crapp anyways. So for Russia, the number needed to deter Putin from war with the U.S. may be more like 9 or 10. Kim Jong Il claimed it would take 50 nuclear missile strikes just to wake him up from his afternoon nap, but something tells me that number is exaggerated and closer to 23, given the relatively small size of North Korea. No we have to consider individual loss aversion in a coalition sense. A portfolio, if you will, of nations hell bent on war with the U.S., and we must test all scenarios. The base scenario suggest it will take 350 nuclear weapons to deter a coalition consisting of the Middle East, most of Africa, Canada and Mexico. In the extreme case, where all other 192 U.N. recognized nations attack the United States, the number is actually 1,790, the current level of nuclear deployment. These numbers don't just happen by accident. That is crayonz-worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 "Enough" depends on the loss aversion of our enemies, you should know that, Magox. I don't know that, and you can't say for sure that you do either. What I do know is that people who are in the know, that are in a much more informed position disagree with you and others. That I do know. Let me reiterate, I've never been a war hawk, I don't promote it, as a matter of fact I've spoken against it on this board. So I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that I am somehow defending aggressive behavior. Having said that, I understand the concept of how military muscularism can be seen as a deterrent. Is having 1500 warheads any more of a deterrent than having 350? I have no idea and I don't profess to know unlike some other posters. I made an extremely SIMPLE argument that having more strength than others can be an effective deterrent. I cant help that some of you interpreted that the way you wanted to. That's your problem. So there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Can anyone here even define "nuclear deterrence"? Frankly, I'm surprised a few of you can spell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Can anyone here even define "nuclear deterrence"? Frankly, I'm surprised a few of you can spell it. I've never heard of the term. Who said it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Can anyone here even define "nuclear deterrence"? Frankly, I'm surprised a few of you can spell it. "Nucular" deterrence? If you slap me I'm going to punch you into next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You are making the assumption that 350 is enough. I on the otherhand admit that I have no clue what is or isn't enough. So yeah, that's what you said. I didn't make that assumption at all. My contention is that having 350 nuclear warheads does not make us a "little guy" on the global scale. What is "enough" has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Yeah, like I said that. Forget it. I think I did misinterpret what you said. In turn, I think you misinterpreted what I said. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I didn't make that assumption at all. My contention is that having 350 nuclear warheads does not make us a "little guy" on the global scale. What is "enough" has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Forget it. I think I did misinterpret what you said. In turn, I think you misinterpreted what I said. Oh well. And being 200 lb doesn't make you a little guy in life, but if 5 150 lb guys decide to hand you your ass you might wish you were built like Dareus. One thing a lot of people don't seem to get is that we don't have all these multiple war heads because we think we'll use all of them. It's because you need to have the right weapon in the right place at the right time. And since none of us knows dick **** about the strategic placement of these weapons we should shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 And being 200 lb doesn't make you a little guy in life, but if 5 150 lb guys decide to hand you your ass you might wish you were built like Dareus. One thing a lot of people don't seem to get is that we don't have all these multiple war heads because we think we'll use all of them. It's because you need to have the right weapon in the right place at the right time. And since none of us knows dick **** about the strategic placement of these weapons we should shut the !@#$ up. I almost said in my last post that this was a stupid topic anyway, but I didn't want to harsh anyone's mellow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I almost said in my last post that this was a stupid topic anyway, but I didn't want to harsh anyone's mellow Well you did it now, the mellows are harshing man, the mellows are harshing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Is getting rid of the stockpile of Nuclear weapons really a bad thing? Really? We currently have over 1,500 nuclear weapons in service and if only a fraction of them fly we end up with a nuclear winter and say good-bye to your current way of life. We don't need them all. Why spend the money for upkeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Is getting rid of the stockpile of Nuclear weapons really a bad thing? Really? We currently have over 1,500 nuclear weapons in service and if only a fraction of them fly we end up with a nuclear winter and say good-bye to your current way of life. We don't need them all. Why spend the money for upkeep? Which one's don't we need, specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Which one's don't we need, specifically? You can start with those fourteen over there on the left. Actually, it's a little know fact that the current administration plans to give all of our weapons to China in exchange for them erasing our debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You can start with those fourteen over there on the left. Actually, it's a little know fact that the current administration plans to give all of our weapons to China in exchange for them erasing our debt. If the Chinese had any integrity they'd give us a nice write off for Ed Wang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts