Author Topic: Stupid scientists  (Read 1182 times)

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
Stupid scientists
« on: January 24, 2018, 07:55:29 PM »
http://www.cnbc.com/id/104966105

It takes 20-25 minutes for Russian or Chinese ICBM's to reach the U.S. and even less for SLBM's and now we should get multiple people to decide on deterrence?

Unreal!

These idiots would give unlimited powers to crazy Hillary without a thought but, not to arrogant Trump... What a fucked up world!

Cardboard


rb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2770
Re: Stupid scientists
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2018, 10:34:08 PM »
Yes I agree with the scientists' premise. The whole democratic system is built in checks and balances. But for some reason one person should have the sole unimpeded decision to end the world? I don't think so. By the way I'm not the only the person to think that. Ronald Reagan was horrified and perplexed by the fact that he may have 10-15 minutes in the middle of the night to decide whether to end the world or not.

Up to now we have been lucky in regard to nuclear weapons. We had Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. We had Reagan and Andropov during Able Archer. What about all the other false alarms and malfunctioning equipment? Replace either Kennedy or Reagan with Trump. Do you feel safer? Do you think there is a greater than zero chance that the result would have been different for those events?

This isn't even about Trump. We may get worse than Trump. But even with the people we know, can you honestly say confidently that Nixon, Clinton, GW Bush would have gotten the same results as Kennedy and Reagan in nuclear standoff? Could even Kennedy and Reagan themselves have gotten the same result if they were in a different mood? It's a bit ridiculous that the fate of the world has to rest on the need to have the right person in the right position at the right time in the right mood.

Also what is the virtue of a quick retaliatory response? The machismo of it sounds great and ingratiating of course. If the enemy launches nukes let's assume it's a pretty good chance we get hit and we're fucked. Maybe the land based ICBMs are safe maybe not. Launching a quick counter attack feels great. Revenge is sweet and we go out in a blaze of glory. Makes for a great blockbuster. But the reality is that the US has enough SLBM to unleash fire and fury like the world has never seen. So the super quick decision to end the world by one person isn't really necessary.

DTEJD1997

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
Re: Stupid scientists
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2018, 10:48:05 PM »
I don't think that the president "pushes a button" and the nukes start flying.

At least not under normal circumstances.

SAC is watching and would have to direct the missiles,bombs, bombers.

If one Tuesday morning, the President hears voices in his head saying to nuke Nigeria, I don't think the military is going to carry out those orders blindly.


Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
Re: Stupid scientists
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2018, 08:07:44 AM »
It is amazing that Liberals are all shouting treason over a few Facebook ads from our enemy to potentially minimally influence an election, while the U.S. weighs in a major way on every worldwide election, and then they are not worried when someone brings up such proposals which may come from scientists directly funded from the same enemy.

Deterrence has prevented this world from another world war. No doubt about it. And the Cuban missile crisis and Able Archer are events illustrating exactly the fear by each party of losing that reaction time to an attack.

While the SLBM argument may seem sufficient to offer a response, these submarines are tracked down and would be attacked immediately if a conflict is launched. How many are undetected is unknown hence why the U.S. has choosen a system with three launch methods. Same for the Russians plus they went with mobile launched ICBM's,.

So it is very concerning to me when people suggest a complex bureaucratic system to a response which has to come quickly and is the key to deterrence. The system has been tested, adapted, improved for 70 years and seems to be working. There are many checks and balances. And our enemies have spent considerable time and energy spying on it to understand exactly how it works or once again to try to undermine said deterrence.

Regarding the initiation of an attack by the U.S., don't worry, a lot of people would be involved in the decision before the order is given. Just like when Kennedy had this as an option.

Cardboard

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3919
Re: Stupid scientists
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2018, 05:16:02 AM »
It is amazing that Liberals are all shouting treason over a few Facebook ads from our enemy to potentially minimally influence an election, while the U.S. weighs in a major way on every worldwide election, and then they are not worried when someone brings up such proposals which may come from scientists directly funded from the same enemy.

Deterrence has prevented this world from another world war. No doubt about it. And the Cuban missile crisis and Able Archer are events illustrating exactly the fear by each party of losing that reaction time to an attack.

While the SLBM argument may seem sufficient to offer a response, these submarines are tracked down and would be attacked immediately if a conflict is launched. How many are undetected is unknown hence why the U.S. has choosen a system with three launch methods. Same for the Russians plus they went with mobile launched ICBM's,.

So it is very concerning to me when people suggest a complex bureaucratic system to a response which has to come quickly and is the key to deterrence. The system has been tested, adapted, improved for 70 years and seems to be working. There are many checks and balances. And our enemies have spent considerable time and energy spying on it to understand exactly how it works or once again to try to undermine said deterrence.

Regarding the initiation of an attack by the U.S., don't worry, a lot of people would be involved in the decision before the order is given. Just like when Kennedy had this as an option.

Cardboard

+1.  I too wonder if the fact that the decision can be make quickly is the deterrent which has prevented disaster.  If so, messing with it now could have unintended consequences that are not good, to say the least.

Short of total nuclear disarmament by everyone, which isn't likely to happen as genies won't go back into their bottles, the mutually assured destruction method seems to be working.