Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(09-08-2017, 12:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Perhaps, though Italy has no nuclear weapons.  I think France
>   would also have regretted the loss of Paris for a long time, but
>   perhaps that's what crisis wars are like.

>   Still, would they have started the conventional war over refugees
>   and oil knowing that was a reasonably likely outcome?  Do you
>   think nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect?

Italy and France are members of Nato.  The no-fly operation was
a Nato operation, and the retaliation for a nuclear strike would
be a Nato operation.

One problem is that we're making contrafactual assumptions and
guessing what might happen, and conclusions could easily be
affected by the assumptions.

One assumption that I'm making is that even if Gaddafi had nuclear
weapons, he wouldn't have had a delivery system, which means that the
only way he could deliver a nuclear weapon is by launching it out of a
warplane, and that could be intercepted over the Mediterranean.  He
could, however, have easily delivered it to Benghazi or Cairo.

In any event, Nato would not have tolerated Gaddafi for long having a
nuclear arsenal threatening Europe.

Valid point on implicit assumptions.  I'm assuming a fully functional delivery system - say, he has ICBMs as good as France's, or has nuclear weapons indetectably prepositioned in all relevant European cities.  Does that change your answer?

Quote:So in answer to your question, I would say that in the vast majority
of the cases, nuclear weapons have the OPPOSITE of a deterrent effect
-- they INCREASE the chances of a missile strike or invasion to
eliminate the threat.  That's why Putin is completely full of shit.
He lies about the "lessons learned" from Iraq and Libya, and uses it
to encourage North Korea to continue developing nuclear missiles.
Putin wants a war between the US and North Korea, because in his
delusional mind, that will benefit him and Russia.

So will we do something militarily to stop North Korea's nuclear
missile development?  I would say that history answers emphatically
YES.

You don't really answer my question, though, because my question was about completed nuclear programs.

I agree that trying to develop nuclear weapons is usually stopped, though India, Pakistan, and possibly Israel and South Africa are counterexamples.

The idea that Putin is trying to tie the US up in a war with North Korea is interesting and a possibility.