This is an utterly floored strategy that prevents any good ol'

Anti missile defenses so overpowered a large nuclear payload stands no chance of hitting its target.

Much like what made anti-tank rifles and flak cannons obsolete

>ON NO ACCOUNT TO BE USED - BECAUSE THE ENEMY MIGHT RETALIATE
This is a misunderstanding. MAD doctrine works because nukes are always on the table.
Also, its "flawed"

File: 1481814514259.gif (499KB, 480x228px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 480x228px

>>32334282
Wew, i'm a moron.

MAD doesn't work. It makes life boring.

>>32334261
We don't they simply exist so deter civilized nations with legitimate infrastructure and economy from going to war with each other; therefore bringing them to a round table discussion on issues and policy. Knowing that each others manpower is moot because of such a technological advancement.

It also puts thumb pressure on lesser nations to adhere to first world powers under threat of invasion by superior military force; or be completely glassed from the planet.

The nuclear arms race was a mistake and both nations realize this... so there they will sit for probably the rest of human history until the defense to said weapon.. or a new more devastating one is developed.

However, it is wrong to expect them to be disarmed all at once and that is why we come to that round table and agree to decommission X by Y time frame. So the balance of power does not shift drastically and end up being in a situation where destruction to country X would be less then country Y bringing nukes back into play.

Besides ultimately , it does not madder they wont ever be used.. and if they are.. you don't really have anything more to worry about then do you since the massive amount of fallout caught in the jet streams will effectively make the entire planet uninhabitable over time and last for hundreds of years.

>Daytime k is shit.

File: 484844784.jpg (70KB, 600x635px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x635px

>>32334277
this guy get's it
if we can nuke everyone else without getting nuked. What's the problem?

File: 37373735.jpg (259KB, 671x450px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 671x450px

>>32334304
I think..... not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout#The_Seven_Ten_Rule

File: e5088c559a7f28223a7b34664d43bd33.gif (112KB, 918x768px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 918x768px

>>32334261
We don't because wars of conquest are undemocratic, anon, and Western civilization says being undemocratic is immoral

But you don't care about that. So the real answer is that we can't do anything to prevent large conventional wars from risking nuclear war. We can't get everybody to mutually disarm, so we can't get rid of the nukes. Nobody can fight wars of conquest because everybody else has a vested interest in no one in the world getting conquered, so there's the political will to stop shit like another Caesar/Napoleon/Hitler from going out and just takings shit over (with exceptions like little bits of land such as Crimea). There's also the threat of nuclear powers deciding that someones military actions are an existential threat to them, and its time to use the nukes or else they're fucked over by not responding. So nuclear powers can't directly fight each other in conventional wars (losing a plane or a few dozen military advisers now and then isn't enough for conventional war) and can't fuck with the present state of the world too much.

You can only fight wars in the grey areas of the world. Nuclear powers or countries with large conventional military forces aren't willing to risk getting fucked up over Dictator Ungambos Democratic Free Republic of West Africa getting a regime change. Also, thanks to capitalism no modern industrialized nation-state even NEEDS conquest. Trade is cheaper and more reliable than war to get what you want, which is the only reason to conquer new lands anyways. So conquest is not as useful as trade, and we can't even do it.

>>32334314
Nukes destroy shittons of stuff, anon, which defeats the point of conquest if used in large numbers. They're useful for strategically forcing an end to a war, crippling an enemy army, or making sure no one fucks with you. So instead its better to just intervene in places in limited wars with limited objectives, which is what the USA already does

File: 4784736.jpg (112KB, 754x488px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 754x488px

>>32334342
Umbongo it is then!

>>32334342
Those pjs are looking pretty comfy.

>>32334261
MAD is a complete misunderstanding. MAD does not require both sides to have nukes.

We don't use nukes because we don't want to use nukes.

If a single nuclear explosion went off in a city it would not result in the launch of all nuclear weapons. People would be very tense and pissed off and you'd probably get a conventional war resulting.

What does nuking a city achieve? Lots of death and economic destruction and very little of military or even political value.

What would happen if Aleppo was nuked?

>>32335442
>Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't need both sides to have WMD's

Return to History 102, do not pass go or collect $200 bison bucks. The point was if one side even detected a single launch both sides would fire everything at predetermined targets. The launch mechanisms were partially autonomous to make sure a strategic strike to a command center wouldn't disable retaliation against the aggressor.

>>32334277
>so overpowered a large nuclear payload stands no chance of hitting its target.
Dream, meet reality.

>>32335442
>What would happen if Aleppo was nuked?

.02% shittier hellhole.

>>32334342
>We don't because wars of conquest are undemocratic
The US has been in wars of conquest since its inception. Hell, all the European democracies have been busily trying to conquer each other and the world since forever, and only stopped because of the rise of the superpowers. If you want to go further back, the Greeks and Romans had zero problems going on wars of conquest either.

>>32335442
>MAD does not require both sides to have nukes
>As an example I will choose Syria
Haha, oh wow.

File: nuke.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>32334302

MAD is an unmitigated good thing. A peace enforced by nuclear weapons is far better than a total war between the major powers.

You even still get to have proxy wars in the countries too small and poorly-equipped to defend themselves, what more do you want?

>>32334302
>MAD doesn't work. It makes life boring.

Then it's working perfectly you fucking tard

>>32334304
>le nukes will end civilization maymay
>>>tumblr

>>32335811
It gives the appearance of working because most large conflicts are just placed on ice. But in reality they are still there and never resolved. Wars can end conflicts and resolve unstable polities and given that genocides can occur in "peacetime" sometimes war is preferable in terms of body count if not in economics.

>>32334277
>Anti missile defenses so overpowered a large nuclear payload stands no chance of hitting its target.

Feel free to let Boeing know when you have a design that works because so far everyone's out of ideas as to actually stop ICBM's at any decent success rate.

>>32334277
Development of effective anti-missile defenses approaching completion will motivate the other power to launch because once they finish there's nothing stopping you from nuking them and shooting down there missiles.

>>32335442
Your birth was a misunderstanding.

>>32335442
>What would happen if Aleppo was nuked?
About $15 million dollars worth of improvements

>>32335759
Good Lord, and that's one of the smallest ones.

>>32334261
what is escalation, the picture

>>32334277
Well there is the old fashion way of getting a bomb on target, drag it there

>>32335705
You missed the part about trade anon.

The Greeks fought wars of conquest because Athens couldn't just go on the Spartan stock exchange and buy whatever they wanted. The US subjugated the Indians because they couldn't couldn't just buy their labor and land instead. The Europeans tried to take over each other because they could get shit done in secret.

When it comes to properties of a democracy your morality mileage may vary, but people are definitely self-interested. Since modern countries rely on global markets for their prosperity, killing the people who will be buying your shit and nuking the factories that will be making your shit goes against that interest.

>>32334304
>or a new more devastating one is developed.
FUND IT IMMEDIATELY

>>32334261
Scrolled, saw no dune jokes about slow knifing people's nuke shields. Come on, I believed in you k!!!

File: jb_modern_nixchina_1_e.jpg (33KB, 454x580px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 454x580px

>>32339877
>killing the people who will be buying your shit and nuking the factories that will be making your shit goes against that interest.
why is why china will never go to war with us. they need us way too much.

>>32334342
>We don't because wars of conquest are undemocratic, anon, and Western civilization says being undemocratic is immoral
That's only in theory anon, you all have loopholes to conquer us third worlders anyways whether its through military coups, economic conquest and influence via sanctions on political parties your government doesn't like, or setting up a proxy war in our nation because we don't want influence from you. We're never free, and we will never be, no matter what they say, they're the ones who pulls the strings. The only taboo is being overtly involved without justification, but as long as its covertly and in some irrrelevant country that doesn't interfere with the interests of other first world nations or former second world nations, we're free game.

>>32340085
Most of the third world was more secure under colonialism but you would rather be oppressed, exploited, murdered, and made to suffer by people who look like you rather than be ruled by people who know what they're doing. You made your bed, now lie in it.

File: IMG_0713.jpg (246KB, 720x422px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 720x422px

>>32340085
>but at least we're free from whitey!!

>>32334277
>Anti missile defenses so overpowered a large nuclear payload stands no chance of hitting its target.

Because missiles are the only vectors able to transport a nuclear device.

Because nuclear weapons are the only way to cause nuclear devastation.

Retard.

>>32335442
>What would happen if Aleppo was nuked?
Rebels would rejoice these 85% of Alep population who are supporting Assad would be dead.

>>32340085
enjoy being buttfucked by chinese who are actual racists and actual colonialists.
When they will begin to invade your country because China is too polluted, you will ask for da white mayne to come back and he won't.
topkek

>>32342739
This.

In 9 out 10 cases "decolonization" meant becoming a Soviet client state with a corrupt internal government instead of being a colony. Now a days, in 9 out 10 cases "rejecting neoliberalism" will mean becoming a Chinese satellite.

>>32335759
anyone knows how those vertical smoke lines are created towards the end of the webm?

>>32334396
wheres this pic from

>>32336367
thats why everything good is classified

>>32345646
Those are smoke trail rockets fired to be able to more precisely measure the size of the explosion, IIRC.

>>32335416
I was thinking the same thing.

>>32334261
By politicians avoiding war and being incorruptible; instead investing money into the economy, etc.

File: ahhh, seclusion.jpg (40KB, 474x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 474x320px

>>32334261
Stop acting like a welfare queen and being dependant on the government, stop being a damn bootlicker, make war a grassroots thing!

Being able to get all the enemy nukes on first strike.

Assured second strike is the real deterrance. Russia, usa, uk, and France are the only nuclear players with strong second strike capability.

Russia uses a fucking Deadhand switch FFS.

File: the_game.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>32335416
I think you mean those pj's look pretty KAMPFY!

>>32334261
Easy.
>Either take over country through civil war or do what Hitler did.
>Let country settle just a little after establishing new laws and government.
>Declare to the world that if you are ever killed unnaturally (assassinated, betrayed, etc.) that you have over a hundred agents stationed in multiple military bases; ready to arm and launch missiles at China causing them to retaliate and kill millions.
>Begin your land-hungry conquest by taking over small, defenseless countries.
>If anyone challenges you, you get to go to war.
>Worst case scenario, you cause a nuclear holocaust.

>>32346249
>everything good is classified

Everything still on the drawing board. At some point, you have to test it. Out in the open. Then, everyone knows what's up.

Besides, Boeing and others never could keep Soviet agents from wandering around their factories.

File: 1480869465850.png (203KB, 900x1000px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 900x1000px

>>32335759
>mfw we have no 4k ultra HD video of a nuke going off.

File: Men into women.jpg (613KB, 2020x2244px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 2020x2244px

Cultural Warfare

File: 1460351215205.jpg (138KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 640x960px

It's likely that a near complete automation of ether conventional military or civilian infrastructure, equipment, and personal would do it. Not to mention it's likely to actually happen.
If nukes don't impact the enemy's government and or military from function significantly then what is even the point of using nuclear weapons?

>>32340007
Until they don't...

>>32335941
In a world with nuclear and chemical weapons, war between major powers is never going to be preferable.

>>32353213
Not what I was saying.