Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by shaolin5, Feb 16, 2019.
Still haven’t heard the secret plan to fight inflation.
excessive inflation really isnt an issue right now
Well let us hope this doesn't escalate.
Explain like I’m 5 what could happen if they went to war
Are there certain sides countries would take
USA trying to be allies with both.
Nuclear war. It would literally be the highest body count of any war, anywhere, ever.
Am I being over dramatic? God I hope so.
That seems bad
Way bigger than I thought the response to terrorist attacks would be
So India bombed the terrorists and Pakistan is all
Apparently those camps were empty*
This guy USUALLY knows what he's talking about (fingers crossed)
OMG how risky
Uhhhh, Iraq had WMDs in case you forgot.
Interesting background on Balakot, basically a center of terrorism in the region, even carrying out strikes in Afghanistan against the US
OK not the first
Can I get an AMEN?
That's not correct
USSR - China 1969
edit: didn't see the next post
1969 was cool because the Sovs actually came to us through back channels and asked how we would respond if they hit the Chinese with nuclear weapons
I wonder what our reply was?
Back channel query is document 11, you can take it from there
Over dramatic. We will never see two states have a nuclear war. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
You have a lot of faith in humanity
Existential deterrence works pretty well, actually
Neither side has an interest in things getting out of control. Neither side has anywhere near a first strike capability. If either side had what they thought was a disarming strike capability, I'd be more concerned.
Sure, but "we will never see two states have a nuclear war" sounds a lot like what the smart people were saying before the first world war... and then the worst war imaginable happened
What would you prefer to hear? The weapons exist. It's old technology by now. We try to amass a literature that discusses what are stabilizing and protective weapons and what are destabilizing and offensive weapons, force structures and postures and whatnot, that make their use much less likely. That's about all we can do. You can forget about getting rid of them. They're not going anywhere, and you wouldn't want a world without nuclear weapons because the temptation to achieve a unilateral breakout would be too tempting.
Maybe something a little less confident about a paradigm where countries sit ready to launch at a moments notice but don't because of assumptions about fear and rationality, not even getting into the chances of an accident.
As I said in my appended post, states take steps to ensure the survivability of their arsenals. Mature states shape their force posture to be more defensive than offensive, and thus be more stabilizing. They also strengthen command, control, and communications to ensure both positive and negative control of their arsenals.
Again, I'm not really sure what you want to hear, given the reality of the situation (both locally and globally).
“Mistaking a naive observation of the past as something definitive or representative of the future is the one and only cause of our inability to understand the Black Swan.”
I don't think we are dealing with "mature states" here
One thing they didnt drop was toilet paper and deodorant. Nuke those dirty street shitters.
How much rage do you wake up with each morning?
For Pakistan? Since I fought an enemy they harbored and supported? A lot.
You are a horrid human