[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Do you think that someone developing effective ABM is a good thing? Especially if it’s not the United States?[/quote]
No. It makes sense for “our” military to want stuff that other military’s do not have though. Surely you see why.
FWIW I’m against it either way, but I understand why the United States is ok with having nukes, but trying to keep other countries from having them. Not that it is necessarily a morally right move, but strategy wise it makes a lot of sense.
From a military perspective being able to do something that your opponent cannot do is a huge advantage. Whether or not one should be against something or for something in these debates is not how the military is going to look at it.
[/quote]
Yes, but not if the weapons system in question encourages balancing behavior by other states and drives them to engage in behaviors that lead to a security paradox. The law of diminishing marginal utility is perfectly applicable to the realm of security.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think I’ll spin this record now:
[/quote]
Epic song. Always been one of my favorites from them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it.
[/quote]
This is what I see. I don’t see how the SDI unbalances things here because MAD was already satisfied and besides which we are assuming both governments have an interest in self preservation. It makes absolutely no sense to say “well, we don’t fire our nukes because if we do you’ll fire yours and kill us as well, but NOW that you might have a way to negate our nuclear capabilities on the way we WILL fire just to stop you, and making sure you kill us”.
That’s irrational. If you assume the USSR is rational, or at least mostly rational, then that makes absolutely no sense.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it.
[/quote]
This is what I see. I don’t see how the SDI unbalances things here because MAD was already satisfied and besides which we are assuming both governments have an interest in self preservation. It makes absolutely no sense to say “well, we don’t fire our nukes because if we do you’ll fire yours and kill us as well, but NOW that you might have a way to negate our nuclear capabilities on the way we WILL fire just to stop you, and making sure you kill us”.
That’s irrational. If you assume the USSR is rational, or at least mostly rational, then that makes absolutely no sense. [/quote]
Where did I ever write that SDI undermining MAD would lead the Soviets to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike? That’s a step that Sloth took on his own. I simply wrote that a policy intent on increasing American security increased the degree of insecurity experienced by both superpowers.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it.
[/quote]
This is what I see. I don’t see how the SDI unbalances things here because MAD was already satisfied and besides which we are assuming both governments have an interest in self preservation. It makes absolutely no sense to say “well, we don’t fire our nukes because if we do you’ll fire yours and kill us as well, but NOW that you might have a way to negate our nuclear capabilities on the way we WILL fire just to stop you, and making sure you kill us”.
That’s irrational. If you assume the USSR is rational, or at least mostly rational, then that makes absolutely no sense. [/quote]
Where did I ever write that SDI undermining MAD would lead the Soviets to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike? That’s a step that Sloth took on his own. I simply wrote that a policy intent on increasing American security increased the degree of insecurity experienced by both superpowers. [/quote]
Well if that’s the case then I misunderstood your definition of “insecurity”. If you aren’t defining it as a real probability of retributive action holding the potential to harm the homeland of the US then I don’t see how it increases real insecurity whatsoever. If it’s simply an emotional state then whoopdedoo. A rational actor doesn’t act on emotional states and I would disagree with your claim then.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it.
[/quote]
This is what I see. I don’t see how the SDI unbalances things here because MAD was already satisfied and besides which we are assuming both governments have an interest in self preservation. It makes absolutely no sense to say “well, we don’t fire our nukes because if we do you’ll fire yours and kill us as well, but NOW that you might have a way to negate our nuclear capabilities on the way we WILL fire just to stop you, and making sure you kill us”.
That’s irrational. If you assume the USSR is rational, or at least mostly rational, then that makes absolutely no sense. [/quote]
Where did I ever write that SDI undermining MAD would lead the Soviets to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike? That’s a step that Sloth took on his own. I simply wrote that a policy intent on increasing American security increased the degree of insecurity experienced by both superpowers. [/quote]
It implies that the possibility is increased. Which I don’t get if the outcome is likely to be even more unfavorable. Were the Soviets rational (Aragorn) or not? If rational, they aren’t firing. If irrational…well, you make a case for SDI.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand. The soviets would have, well, what? Have been motivated to get themselves nuked because of SDI?
I mean, if mutual destruction is enough to keep me from launching nukes, getting myself nuked into oblivion in a more one-sided exchange doesn’t seem like the option I’m taking.
I don’t know. Just not seeing it.
Someone will develop it eventually.
[/quote]
The key component of MAD is that a victim of a preemptive strike will retain sufficient strategic nuclear forces to retaliate in kind, inflicting unacceptable damage to its attacker.If the U.S. had carried out a preemptive nuclear strike against the USSR, a realized SDI would have been able to neuter much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Consequently, the Soviets were fearful of the true motives and intentions behind SDI. American strategists failed to understand that their words and actions could lead to the insecurity of others, failing to practice security dilemma sensibility.
Weapons (such as SDI) are the physical manifestation of the existential condition of uncertainty in international politics. They are ambiguous symbols, meaning that the same weapons that provide defense can also be used to coerce. This is dependent upon the intentions and motives of the actor wielding the weapon. For example, a firearm used by a homeowner to defend themselves can also be used by a criminal to extort an innocent. [/quote]
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it. If this was about prohibitive costs, and lack of technical can do, I could understand. But the above doesn’t make sense to me.
I wish mankind never invented the sword. But we did. Split the atom? Make a bomb! If we could push the redo button, the same outcome would happen every single time once the scientific-engineering milestones were rediscovered.
If this SDI/ABM ever became practical and effective, and a race by multiple nations and alliances to get them up happened, at least we all would have a chance of surviving a nuclear Armageddon, as each actor’s SDI shot down the others nukes.
[/quote]
I never argued for that straw man. How does increased insecurity between both superpowers equate to me contending for what you wrote above?
Or, more likely, we’ll see a renewed arms race to counter ABM systems and to overwhelm ABM systems by sheer volume of ordinance? ABM systems are not able to intercept intermediate or tactical nuclear weapons by the way. The vicious circle of the security paradox hasn’t been transcended in your scenario.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand. The soviets would have, well, what? Have been motivated to get themselves nuked because of SDI?
I mean, if mutual destruction is enough to keep me from launching nukes, getting myself nuked into oblivion in a more one-sided exchange doesn’t seem like the option I’m taking.
I don’t know. Just not seeing it.
Someone will develop it eventually.
[/quote]
The key component of MAD is that a victim of a preemptive strike will retain sufficient strategic nuclear forces to retaliate in kind, inflicting unacceptable damage to its attacker.If the U.S. had carried out a preemptive nuclear strike against the USSR, a realized SDI would have been able to neuter much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Consequently, the Soviets were fearful of the true motives and intentions behind SDI. American strategists failed to understand that their words and actions could lead to the insecurity of others, failing to practice security dilemma sensibility.
Weapons (such as SDI) are the physical manifestation of the existential condition of uncertainty in international politics. They are ambiguous symbols, meaning that the same weapons that provide defense can also be used to coerce. This is dependent upon the intentions and motives of the actor wielding the weapon. For example, a firearm used by a homeowner to defend themselves can also be used by a criminal to extort an innocent. [/quote]
Sorry, I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. What were the Soviets going to do? Nuke us before SDI became a reality, ensuring their own destruction? All in order to prevent a hypothetical nuclear strike by us after SDI went up? “In order to prevent the possibility of our destruction we must take an action that guarantees our destruction.” I don’t see it. If this was about prohibitive costs, and lack of technical can do, I could understand. But the above doesn’t make sense to me.
I wish mankind never invented the sword. But we did. Split the atom? Make a bomb! If we could push the redo button, the same outcome would happen every single time once the scientific-engineering milestones were rediscovered.
If this SDI/ABM ever became practical and effective, and a race by multiple nations and alliances to get them up happened, at least we all would have a chance of surviving a nuclear Armageddon, as each actor’s SDI shot down the others nukes.
[/quote]
I never argued for that straw man. How does increased insecurity between both superpowers equate to me contending for what you wrote above?
Or, more likely, we’ll see a renewed arms race to counter ABM systems and to overwhelm ABM systems by sheer volume of ordinance? ABM systems are not able to intercept intermediate or tactical nuclear weapons by the way. The vicious circle of the security paradox hasn’t been transcended in your scenario.[/quote]
“Undermining MAD.” MAD is a deterrent. So “undermining the deterrent.” So now that you’re saying it wouldn’t undermine the deterrent–well, what?
But if you had only been talking about an even more prolific arms race…Then the USSR falls apart that much faster…
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
Right after you prove that the USSR attacked as a result of such an inconsiderate security blunder.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
Right after you prove that the USSR attacked as a result of such an inconsiderate security blunder.
[/quote]
I won’t address a straw man. Refer to my above response to Sloth and Aragorn. Security (Or insecurity) is not black and white. Think of it in varying shades of grey.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
Right after you prove that the USSR attacked as a result of such an inconsiderate security blunder.
[/quote]
I won’t address a straw man. Refer to my above response to Sloth and Aragorn. Security (Or insecurity) is not black and white. Think of it in varying shades of grey.[/quote]
?
That isn’t a strawman. They didn’t attack. You can do all of the etiological jumping jacks you want, but the simple fact is that we were trading with them commercially and they were reliant on us to feed their population because of the inadequacies of their political system.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Thats my take too.
Best actor of all time exluded.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
It utterly ruined them.
They needed to step up if even the potential existed that the US could pull it off and they could not afford it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
It utterly ruined them.
They needed to step up if even the potential existed that the US could pull it off and they could not afford it. [/quote]
Orion, what do people like us know? It was just the contemporary news of our youth. We ain’t got none of that fancy book learnin about rational agents in abstractum to back us up.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
It utterly ruined them.
They needed to step up if even the potential existed that the US could pull it off and they could not afford it. [/quote]
Orion, what do people like us know? It was just the contemporary news of our youth. We ain’t got none of that fancy book learnin about rational agents in abstractum to back us up.
[/quote]
It iz true.
We iz az dumb as a boxz of rockz…
But, thankfully, we are useful enough to finance the guys who will explain to us how Reagan totally made it worse.
Even though the USSR went down.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Let’s hear that “thesis statement” and the corresponding empirical evidence regarding how SDI “put a squash on the cold war.”[/quote]
It utterly ruined them.
They needed to step up if even the potential existed that the US could pull it off and they could not afford it. [/quote]
Orion, what do people like us know? It was just the contemporary news of our youth. We ain’t got none of that fancy book learnin about rational agents in abstractum to back us up.
[/quote]
Correlation does not imply causation. Something as complex as the disintegration of the USSR cannot be explained so simply. 9/11 was the contemporary news of my youth. Will that mean I’ll be a subject matter expert of religious terrorism in 20 years without putting in the intellectual leg work?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Thats my take too.
Best actor of all time exluded. [/quote]
Yes. A president known for his lack of knowledge of world affairs dreamt up a grand strategy to bring the evil empire crumbling down.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Thats my take too.
Best actor of all time exluded. [/quote]
Yes. A president known for his lack of knowledge of world affairs dreamt up a grand strategy to bring the evil empire crumbling down.
[/quote]
Did it really need a lot of thought? Other guy who can’t possibly keep up tries anyway.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The SDI “Star wars Defense Initiative” was a ruse puled off by one of the best actors of all time to put a squash on the cold war.
[/quote]
Thats my take too.
Best actor of all time exluded. [/quote]
Yes. A president known for his lack of knowledge of world affairs dreamt up a grand strategy to bring the evil empire crumbling down.
[/quote]
Did it really need a lot of thought? Other guy who can’t possibly keep up tries anyway.
[/quote]
It’s easy for contemporary observers to see so, but the collapse of the USSR completely shocked scholars and practitioners of international relations when it occurred. History seeks to understand. Political science seeks to explain, which is much more ambitious. Prediction stemming from explanation is the holy grail of political science.