Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunnyears
There will never be a scenario where the benefits outweigh the costs. Using nukes today is a totally irrational decision.
|
Today it is, and I hope it stays that way for a long time to come. But who knows what's gonna happen in the future. Let's say for instance North Korea goes even more loony than it is today, and decides to nuke & invade South Korea as well as lobbing a few nukes at Japan & Hong Kong. It's not too far-fetched.
Quote:
If you think that missile defense is the way to go, it is because you believe that eventually we will either be attacked or will launch a pre-emptive attack. |
I believe there's a chance someone might launch a nuke against the US, not that much of a chance but it exists. I feel much better knowing that a system, however imperfect is being put in place to defend against that possibility, as the alternative is to simply hope it never happens. Kinda like putting high security locks on the doors of your home. Chances are you'll never need them, and chances are a really determined burglar will still break through them, but they do give you more time & options.
Let's use the North Korea scenario. They're currently developing missiles which can hit the west coast of the US. Let's assume they get them working, and they decide to launch a limited first strike against the US, say, 5-10 missiles, which is about as many as they can realistically build. Without NMD, the US will have to write off most of west coast, and military doctrine & public pressure would require that they completely incinerate North Korea in retaliation.
With NMD, damage will be more limited, the US may only lose 2-3 cities, or if they get lucky, none at all. In the latter case, this opens up lots of options, the US no longer has to incinerate NK, they can use conventional weapons or limit themselves to nuclear strikes against North Korean
military targets only instead of incinerating the entire country.
Quote:
If you are interested in hypotheticals, take a look at nuclear winter, and then ask yourself if levelling any country with nukes will result in American victory, or long term decline and thus defeat. Your scenario of leveling UK with nukes is a lose-lose scenario. try again! |
Nuclear winter has been pretty much discredited. The explosive power of all the nukes in the world put together don't even add up to the power of the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, and that only resulted in a 1-2 degree drop in worldwide temperature. The reports which led to the nuclear winter myth were based on atmospheric models which were far too simplistic as well as being flawed. Research done since the mid-late 80's have shown that it would be more of a nuclear autumn than winter.