USA to resume nuclear tests to save its Cold War stockpile

[austrianeagle]

No I'm just being an uneducated ass, it's pretty fun. Try it.

[pimpdave]

No, nuclear weapons are successful as a deterrent due to a little thing called mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nobody is going to attack someone that's going to destroy them in turn, and if both parties have that capability then war will never break out. Theoretically.

Let's say I'm an enemy of the US, and I'm saying that theory is wrong... because it wagers that I consider the life of my people to be worth something. If I want to blow up the USA, then I will... and if the US bombs my country at the same time, that's just even more civilians killed, what do I care? I've escaped to another country by now. Are you going to destroy that one too? Am I supposed to become all teary-eyed at the loss of my people, enough for me to stop killing yours? Did that work for you? The cause of good is worth more than lives! (At least, that's what you said when you tried to stop my evil regime. And that's what I'm saying about my antiamerican cause.)

See, here's the problem Ditocoaf, in order to MAKE a nuclear weapon, one needs an infrastructure capable of producing the materials and R&D necessary to develop and manufacture viable nuclear weapons. If entire cities get wiped out, it's not just the people, it's the infrastructure too. And that infrastructure requires people to make it function...

It's not a matter of caring, it's a matter of resources with which to make war. If the Soviets taught us anything, it's that human life is the cheapest renewable resource on the planet. An evil war-lord almost certainly thinks the same way.

There's a pretty damn good reason why al-Qaeda has yet to use nuclear weapons in any of their attacks, and their attempts at making a dirty bomb seem to be going nowhere as well.

Remember, there was a delay of 8 years between both attacks on the WTC. In between though, they hit the USS Cole and a few embassies. We haven't seen any embassies similarly hit in the 7 years since the most recent attack on US homeland soil. This suggests rather poignantly, that the black ops war we've been running against al-Qaeda has been succeeding in frustrating and diverting their plans for newer, bigger attacks, or they were incapable all along, or it's a hell of a lot harder to pull off than that George Clooney movie from the late 90s suggests.

The tragedies in London and Spain were terrible, but they were "more of the same" in terms of technology used to carry out. If our arsenal is degrading, then the arsenal the terrorists would have been able to access in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union is degrading too.

So really, we should be worried about nanowyrms, not nukes.

[Frigidus]

Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.

They don't want anyone feeling sorry for their civilians, they want people saying "Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! Oh shit! We can't declare war on them, they'll destroy us."

I don't think anybody has illusions of beating the U.S. in a one on one fight.

Al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda's strategy is actually to move from place to place, letting us follow and expend large amounts of resources stopping them, slowly bankrupting ourselves bit by bit.

Yes, but they are taking us on... and winning

They attacked us one time...ever since then it's been in their countries. The very best they can do is tie.

[pimpdave]

They attacked us one time...ever since then it's been in their countries. The very best they can do is tie.

Dude, completely wrong. Read the 9/11 Commission Report, or else reread it. Because they've attacked us more than once. It's just that none of them were as big as 9/11, and none have been as big since.

This suggests that their attempts at escalation have been halted, but they are managing to bankrupt us...

[Snorri1234]

They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.

They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.

Indeed.

[jbrettlip]

They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.

They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.

Indeed.

They are winning at getting killed and their country blown up too. The US is bankrupting itself, unless Al-queda is the politicians that keep promising entitlements like SSI and Medicare. Because the numbers the military spends are tiny compared to those social programs. Hmmm...maybe you are on to something. Ted Kennedy probably IS a terrorist!!!

[Ditocoaf]

No, nuclear weapons are successful as a deterrent due to a little thing called mutually assured destruction. The idea is that nobody is going to attack someone that's going to destroy them in turn, and if both parties have that capability then war will never break out. Theoretically.

Let's say I'm an enemy of the US, and I'm saying that theory is wrong... because it wagers that I consider the life of my people to be worth something. If I want to blow up the USA, then I will... and if the US bombs my country at the same time, that's just even more civilians killed, what do I care? I've escaped to another country by now. Are you going to destroy that one too? Am I supposed to become all teary-eyed at the loss of my people, enough for me to stop killing yours? Did that work for you? The cause of good is worth more than lives! (At least, that's what you said when you tried to stop my evil regime. And that's what I'm saying about my antiamerican cause.)

See, here's the problem Ditocoaf, in order to MAKE a nuclear weapon, one needs an infrastructure capable of producing the materials and R&D necessary to develop and manufacture viable nuclear weapons. If entire cities get wiped out, it's not just the people, it's the infrastructure too. And that infrastructure requires people to make it function...

It's not a matter of caring, it's a matter of resources with which to make war. If the Soviets taught us anything, it's that human life is the cheapest renewable resource on the planet. An evil war-lord almost certainly thinks the same way.

There's a pretty damn good reason why al-Qaeda has yet to use nuclear weapons in any of their attacks, and their attempts at making a dirty bomb seem to be going nowhere as well.

Remember, there was a delay of 8 years between both attacks on the WTC. In between though, they hit the USS Cole and a few embassies. We haven't seen any embassies similarly hit in the 7 years since the most recent attack on US homeland soil. This suggests rather poignantly, that the black ops war we've been running against al-Qaeda has been succeeding in frustrating and diverting their plans for newer, bigger attacks, or they were incapable all along, or it's a hell of a lot harder to pull off than that George Clooney movie from the late 90s suggests.

The tragedies in London and Spain were terrible, but they were "more of the same" in terms of technology used to carry out. If our arsenal is degrading, then the arsenal the terrorists would have been able to access in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union is degrading too.

So really, we should be worried about nanowyrms, not nukes.

Mostly, my post was questioning the effectiveness of Nukes (the united state's nukes) as a deterrent, in general. Even more generally, I was questioning the effectiveness of mass-killing civilians in a war (which we have done in both world wars). As you said, civilians are a cheap renewable resource, so we're counting on the enemy actually caring that his citizens have died... is that a good gamble to make?

[Snorri1234]

They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.

They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.

Indeed.

They are winning at getting killed and their country blown up too.

They do not care about that. You are dealing with fucking terrorists here.

They are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. We discuss whether we maybe want to give up a little privacy. If you think that killing a bunch of them and attacking a country they might or might not be from makes a difference you are deluding yourself. In their eyes, the losses they get are either unimportant or worth it. They fight for their ideal, a far more powerful ideal than democracy.

To think that you can win against people who are willing to blow themselves up is just silly.

[Ditocoaf]

They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.

They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.

They are winning at getting killed and their country blown up too.

They do not care about that. You are dealing with fucking terrorists here.

They are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. We discuss whether we maybe want to give up a little privacy. If you think that killing a bunch of them and attacking a country they might or might not be from makes a difference you are deluding yourself. In their eyes, the losses they get are either unimportant or worth it. They fight for their ideal, a far more powerful ideal than democracy.

To think that you can win against people who are willing to blow themselves up is just silly.

Exactly. The thing is, absolutely nothing that happens will be considered a loss by them... if they and their families die, they've still done right by God, and so the fight goes on without them. So, since surrender isn't an option (even if a leader declared surrender, do you think the others would stop?) we'd have to kill everyone who holds this ideal... and every time we kill someone with that ideal, it encourages others to join the cause. So we're fighting a hydra.

It's not because the US is weak or because they're strong... it's because they don't care about anything other than the fight, and therefore they can't lose--they can either win, or die (every single one of them).

[Frigidus]

They are hardly winning. That is just silly. Hiding in caves and sending retarded women to suicide bomb is not winning.

They're winning if you realize what winning is in their perspective. They want to destroy the west, and they obviously can't do it through brute force. So what better way than to bankrupt it through endless wars of attrition until their own people can't take it anymore and force the change in policy.

They are winning at getting killed and their country blown up too.

They do not care about that. You are dealing with fucking terrorists here.

They are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. We discuss whether we maybe want to give up a little privacy. If you think that killing a bunch of them and attacking a country they might or might not be from makes a difference you are deluding yourself. In their eyes, the losses they get are either unimportant or worth it. They fight for their ideal, a far more powerful ideal than democracy.

To think that you can win against people who are willing to blow themselves up is just silly.

Exactly. The thing is, absolutely nothing that happens will be considered a loss by them... if they and their families die, they've still done right by God, and so the fight goes on without them. So, since surrender isn't an option (even if a leader declared surrender, do you think the others would stop?) we'd have to kill everyone who holds this ideal... and every time we kill someone with that ideal, it encourages others to join the cause. So we're fighting a hydra.

It's not because the US is weak or because they're strong... it's because they don't care about anything other than the fight, and therefore they can't lose--they can either win, or die (every single one of them).

In the same way you can never truly wipe out crime you can not wipe out terrorism. It's foolish for you to even try. That said, you don't just admit that your cause is a lost one and stop policing neighborhoods.

[Snorri1234]

In the same way you can never truly wipe out crime you can not wipe out terrorism. It's foolish for you to even try. That said, you don't just admit that your cause is a lost one and stop policing neighborhoods.

True, but you don't start waging wars against towns just because a few neighborhoods are full of crimes. Which is exatly the problem. You can stop terrorist-plots and all that, but a war just doesn't work.

[Juan_Bottom]

I just want to say this:

I do not believe Al-Qaeda is responsable for the bombing of the USS Cole. Take a look at what happened to all the people who where "responsable." It's impossable that Al-Qaeda did it. Impossable.

In the same way you can never truly wipe out crime you can not wipe out terrorism. It's foolish for you to even try. That said, you don't just admit that your cause is a lost one and stop policing neighborhoods.

And yet, WE KNOW THIS. If some random dude on the web can figure it out, certainly the pentagon can. This has to be war for profit.
And I think Al-Qaeda knows that. They'll bankrupt the US... but by using our White Collars & politicians greed to their advantage... the rich get richer, America bankrupts and is forced to leave...... The terrorists and White Collars win.

I guess to me, our leaders are terrorists too.

[pimpdave]

Mostly, my post was questioning the effectiveness of Nukes (the united state's nukes) as a deterrent, in general. Even more generally, I was questioning the effectiveness of mass-killing civilians in a war (which we have done in both world wars). As you said, civilians are a cheap renewable resource, so we're counting on the enemy actually caring that his citizens have died... is that a good gamble to make?

Right, so nukes could be considered a viable deterrent against other nuclear powers. We're saying the same thing.

The caring part has nothing to do with it. If the resource of human life doesn't exist to construct a nuclear bomb, one cannot be created. This is why a nuclear program only works as a deterrent against an industrialized enemy, but not a loosely connected network of terrorist cells, like al-Qaeda.

I know you're a numbers guy and not a history guy, but if you read up on the cold war, you'll probably come across some of the military and political theory behind the principle of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. It's an unfortunate consequence of human nature.

[Pedronicus]

What an incredible thread of total paranoia. I'm glad to see that FOX and the rest of your media have really made you all so threatened by anything and everything. This just sums up why your budget for defence is obscenely high compared to healthcare

Guerrilla fighters do. In fact, that's the only way they can, short of maybe China/Russia turning suddenly hostile.

Do you really think that Russia or China are one day going to decide to attack America? Instead of selling America gas or oil or cheap plastic toys that you get free in a happy meal.

[Hologram]

What an incredible thread of total paranoia. I'm glad to see that FOX and the rest of your media have really made you all so threatened by anything and everything. This just sums up why your budget for defence is obscenely high compared to healthcare

Guerrilla fighters do. In fact, that's the only way they can, short of maybe China/Russia turning suddenly hostile.

Do you really think that Russia or China are one day going to decide to attack America? Instead of selling America gas or oil or cheap plastic toys that you get free in a happy meal.

Did I even say that they would? I opened up the idea that if they did, then we'd have a real war on our hands.

I personally don't think China is going to attack us anytime soon. Russia will ruffle some feathers in the mideast and eastern Europe, but there won't be any open war, what with that whole M.A.D. thing rearing its ugly head again.

[Juan_Bottom]

Did I even say that they would? I opened up the idea that if they did, then we'd have a real war on our hands.

I personally don't think China is going to attack us anytime soon. Russia will ruffle some feathers in the mideast and eastern Europe, but there won't be any open war, what with that whole M.A.D. thing rearing its ugly head again.

And S. America... Russia recently threatened NATO with war... let's not assume that was an April Fools... and since China is allied with Russia... let's keep an open mind.

War with China and Russia in my lifetime is very possible, unfortunitly.

[brooksieb]

Going back to the terrorist situation, as most of you would know there is/was a 30 year war in N. Ireland, (late 1960's to late 1990's) i served there between 1979 to 1998, in one of the longest fought out wars and this is the IRA we're talking about, from 1st hand experience it is a tough war, especially for the troops there because as you guys would know they don't dress up in uniform, so it is hard not to shoot civilians which would further annoy and anger the population, especially if you shoot the children, god.... Don't shoot the children.