Really!?....hmmm?....I actually thought I`d done a rather good job making some very well considered logical arguments that nicely illustrated all of the salient points....Oh well,I guess everyones a critic.[shrugs]
The VETO holding members of UNSC have voting not because they have nuclear weapons (or else by that logic India/Pakistan/Israel should also have veto power), but that they were key foreign powers that dominated the global at one time or another in history. It was made to bring balance to world order and reduce risk of another world war.
I never said nukes gave them voting rights,I was simply countering your original argument that nukes were useless,by noting that all the veto holding members of the unsc went to a lot of trouble and expense to acquire them and to continue to maintain and upgrade them even after the end of the cold war.
And they dominated the globe by virtue of their military power as much if not more than their political and economic power.They obviously considered these weapons to be worthwhile because they all went on to acquire them,and indeed many would consider that it was these weapons alone and the balance they brought that avoided another world war,well that and a bit of luck obviously.
Nuclear weapons are not an deterrent to attack, they are a deterrent to occupation and regime removal. But even that is up for debate.
Thats equally as true of any weapon tho,if someone really wants to attack you regardless of the consequences then they probably will,but the potential consequences of attacking a nws could be very severe indeed,and most rational governments and their military leaders will know this.If a nuclear arsenal prevents regime change and the destruction of the state then it has served its purpose,after all how many nws have been subjected to regime change or the destruction of their state?....thats right NONE!.
Russia has nuclear weapons yet NATO has encroached and crossed Russian Red lines and are sitting outside of russian territory. China has nuclear weapons yet, US routinely violates the China Sea Island bases and continues support of Taiwan. Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet. What did Russia do?
The russians acted militarily once they considered the west had gone to far and that vital russian interests were at stake.First in georgia in 08,humiliating the georgians while shakasvilli pointlessly begged the west for help that would never ever come.When it seemed the west was still pushing its luck with the ukraine,the russians intervened there as well.This time annexing the crimea and supporting the separatists.Now what exactly did the us/nato do in response to this blatant "soviet style" aggression and land grab?....thats right,they did nothing,well nothing military that is.Because when it really comes down to it neither side is going to risk a war over something like this.
As for turkey...well no weapon will protect you from someone making a stupid mistake ie some gung-ho incompetent fool who panics in the heat of the moment and does something stupid,just like the fools who shot down kal007 or iran air 855.But that doesnt mean that turkey got off scot free,or that they didnt end up regretting it because they certainly did when putin slapped them with sanctions and ultimately erdogan apologised for the incident.Russia just like iran was in syria not to start a war with turkey but to ensure the survival of the syrian state and its government.
As for china,well some of these bases are built on disputed islands claimed by other nations,and yet china didnt give a sh1t it just started building there.Now what did the us navy do about this?.....thats right,Sweet!.Fu#k!.All!,about the only thing they could do was to send their carriers into these areas under freedom of navigation to show they werent intimidated,but only a fool would fail to realise that the presence of bases like these would potentially make us/allied naval operations in that area very difficult in any future war.Once again tho neither side would risk a war over something like this.
Ahh yes,taiwan.I think its pretty clear that when it came to taiwan both the us and the prc agreed to disagree over this touchy subject,but they both agreed not to do anything that could lead to things getting out of hand.The us would limit arms sales and equipment transfers and keep political contacts fairly low key,and in return the chinese would not attack or try to invade taiwan.This arrangement seems to have worked fairly well and I imagine that it will continue to,provided the taiwanese dont do anything crazy like deciding to declare independence or something provocative like that.
This actually reminds of an old joke that I once heard about the dubious value of the concept of extended deterrence:
A chinese general goes into a bar to have a drink and bumps into an american general whos an old friend of his.The two of them sit down and order up a drink and start talking,eventually the chinese general finishes his drink and with a smile on his face he turns and says to the american general "So tell me,are you guys seriously gonna trade los angeles for taipei?"[LOL!]
Nuclear weapons are overrated. The arms industry uses the “deterrence” argument to justify the high cost required in maintaining and renewing the program.
That also applies equally to the rest of the military industrial complex as well.The fact of the matter is that once you have this sort of complex uber expensive military hardware,be it conventional or nuclear,you basically have no choice but to maintain it and keep it up to date despite the costs,because if you dont you risk winding up with a military equipped with obsolescent weapons of dubious value....sort of like the present iranian airforce in fact,wouldnt you agree?.
If they had to, US/NATO would get into skirmishes with a russia or China and nuclear weapons won’t do a damn thing!
Oh?..you mean like they did in berlin or korea or cuba or georgia or crimea or syria or...oh?!,wait a minute they DIDNT!.I guess it ultimately depends on what exactly your definition of "if they had to" means.Historically the nws went to considerable efforts to ensure that they were never ever in an "if they had to" situation,which is probably one of the reasons why there was never a ww3,well that and a bit of luck of course..You see the problem with a "skirmish" is that it can very quickly get out of hand and accelerate beyond the ability of the politicians to control it and once that happens then events can very quickly take on a life of their own,the best analogy for this is a cartoon of a snowball rolling down a hill getting bigger and bigger,faster and faster until nothing can stop it,and thats how you potentially go from a "skirmish" to a nuclear exchange and then its pretty much game over for everyone concerned.When it comes to that particular game the only winning move is not to play in the first place.
In Iran’s case if Iran got nuclear weapons, the easiest way for the West to combat is to start a civil war similar to Syria inside Iran. What is Iran going to do then? Nuke itself?
LOL!,Iran ISNT syria!.
In fact the last time I looked the west had been trying that sort of sh1t against iran for the past 40 odd years now with nothing more to show for all of its various efforts except a rather spectacular level of failure,yet apparently you think they`d now suddenly succeed because iran would have nukes?.If anything the reverse would likely be true as attempting to cause the collapse of a nuclear armed state could potentially be utterly catastrophic ie what would happen to those weapons?,what contingency measures would`ve been put in place to deal with this sort of event?,whose command and control would they be under?,would the safeguards and fail safes built into both the chain of command and its actual weapons keep them secure or would they just collapse leading to these weapons either being used without authorisation or perhaps just being stolen,and then of course you would have the fissile materiel stocks themselves to worry about.All very,very big risks as you can hopefully see,because if theres one state you really dont want to try and play the destabilisation game with its a nuclear armed one,because the consequences could be truly dreadful beyond belief.
The West has learned to combat nuclear powers by causing internal dissident in those countries.
Its done a pretty damn lousy job then,hasnt it?.I mean the last time I looked china,russia and the dprk all seemed to have a pretty good handle on law and order,probably better than in the west in fact.
If you`re talking about the soviet unions collapse that was down to gorbachev and his ill considered policies which ultimately provoked the failed coup attempt.Indeed it seems to me that it was the countries without nukes,and admittedly poor leadership,like libya and syria who were vulnerable to those sorts of dirty tricks.Of course if you`re going to try that on a nuclear armed state one of the risks you would then have to try to deal with is the potential for "loose nukes",not a very nice thought at all.
And you are wrong about NK, If Iran would have gotten nuclear weapons they would be sanctioned by the entire world!
Perhaps...but isnt it funny,I mean iran plays by the rules and negotiates a multi-party international deal,actually a pretty good one from the wests perspective,dismantles,destroys or freezes the bulk of its nuke program for the next 10-15+ years and....the west never lives up to its side of the deal and iran never gets many of the supposed benefits that were to come from it,and then ultimately trump comes along and tears it all up and threatens to sanction anyone who does any business with iran.
Meanwhile the dprk goes ahead and builds its own nuke force,a fairly credible one or at least the beginnings of one from the looks of it,and ultimately gets a us/dprk international summit in singapore with trump,and all of that for nothing more than a vague promise of denuclearisation and the dismantling of a single test site,which is arguably redundant now anyway because the north now has compact staged thermo-nukes and a literal sh!t load of test data from the previous 5 successful tests.It really does make one wonder who was smarter in the long run kim or rouhani.
Hmmm...what do you suppose the chances of rouhani getting a summit with trump are..?.I`m joking of course [LOL!] iran would actually need to have nukes in order to have that happen.
Russia doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, China doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. No one wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Yeeaah!,I seem to remember them not wanting iran to have the nuclear fuel cycle either,or indeed any indigenous nuclear technology or programs at all for that matter,its certainly what trump+co wants.
Last time I looked iran didnt really give two fu#ks about what any other countries wanted for iran,neither east nor west,remember?.Because ya`know thats a big part of being an independent sovereign nation,you`re not somebody elses little bitch,like saudi and the gulfies,and you actually get to make your own decisions.Altho with rouhani+co running the show who really knows anymore,right?
So yes Iran would have nuclear weapons but then with no one buying Iranian oil and Iran being cut off from the world it would slowly bleed a slow death and ultimately there would be mass unrest.
Um!...I really do hate to break this to you but thats already what trump and co have effectively decided they`re going to try to do to iran...I guess you must`ve missed that particular announcement,tho I`m pretty sure that it was in all the media...oh well,now you know!.
And lastly have only first strike capability is useless! All the great nuclear powers have both first strike and second strike (nuclear armed submarines) to respond to aggression. Having only first strike capability is not a significant deterrence! Again why Iran passed on nuclear weapons.
Which part of "road mobile" seems to be giving your poor old brain the most trouble my friend?,is it the "road" part or is it the "mobile" part?,or is it the actual combining of the two concepts into "road mobile" that seems to have left you stumped?,hey maybe you just forgot.I mean why else do you think iran developed road mobile tels for its ballistic missile forces in the first place?.....Well for the exact same reason everyone else did of course,thats right survivability,and thats why the russians,chinese and dprk did it and even the americans seriously considered it as well with their crazy old mx missile trains among other things.Now I think that if the dprk can do it,with a little chinese help admittedly,then so can iran,because when it comes down to it you dont really need a ballistic missile submarine to give you a viable second strike capability,now do you?.
Oh,by the way you never did answer my last question did you?.Well I suspect you`re probably still thinking about it,because it isnt exactly an easy one to come up with an answer for,now is it?.I mean its easy enough to shoot holes in other peoples ideas for possible options but coming up with an original idea or alternative solution of your own isnt quite so simple.....well you keep thinking about it,I`m sure if you keep working that problem something`ll pop up.....eventually.Anyhoo when it finally does dont keep us all in suspense,because like I said previously inquiring minds,mine especially in fact,really DO want to know.TaTa
Here endeth the lesson.
