Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

You are too optimistic.

The US got too involved in too many wars for the wrong reasons and we got weary of them. China sees this as a weakness (admittedly).

If the US does not flinch, no one else will and we won’t and no one else will.

We know terrible things are happening en masse in Xinjiang, Iran does terrible things to dissidents, north Korea does terrible things.

China and N Korea have nukes. Iran is close. In the and no one will do anything if they decide to fully bare their teeth.

Economically it’s a “commons” no one is willingly going to leave because it’s leaving too much money on the table. In a globalized world, companies really heavily influence foreign policy. These companies want the printer to stay on.

They may do themselves in, but that’s on them.

View on HN

US has sophisticated missile defense systems and enough nukes to send the entire continent of asia back to the stone age. A nuclear war started by any other nation than the U.S. is literally suicide, and these world leaders know it which is why all there has been since WWII in terms of nuclear warfare is saber rattling.

>US has sophisticated missile defense systems and enough nukes to send the entire continent of asia back to the stone age

So does China with the US.

China's arsenal is almost a full order of magnitude smaller than just what the US has currently deployed and ready for launch (not counting the rest of the stockpile which is like 4x the size). We have enough weaponry to completely overwhelm their defenses. China does not.

Not to mention that the US deployed strategic arms in more diverse locations (other countries), making a first strike against them that takes out most of their response capability difficult to pull off successfully.

Wtf? Why are people in this thread acting like the nuclear option is an actual option. This isn't StarCraft where you trade into the enemy forces, and as long as you cripple their economy you win. You just killed billions of innocent people. Everyone lost.

Y'all need to go watch War Games again. The only winning move is not to play.

So China will only nuke 60% of the US population instead of the 90% casualties we will inflict on them? Huzzah! That will show 'em!

There is also the US National Missile Defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile...

I suggest you read the article you linked carefully. Follow the links to the articles of each of the constituent programs, and read those articles carefully with a critical eye. Pay particular attention to the number of interceptors those programs actually have, the type of missile those systems are designed to intercept, and the locations of the installations. You can use the "measure distance" tool on google maps to plot out great arcs to get an idea of what sort of threat those installations are meant to counter.

I'll sum it up for you: The US has some defense against countries like North Korea. Not against Russia, nor even China. But don't take my word for it, read those articles carefully, paying attention to the details.

“ Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.”

-General Buck Turgidson, Dr Strangelove

Here it is in video form, watch it so you can see how ridiculous your idea is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

The blueray 4k they released for Dr Strangelove looks amazing. Highly recommend watching it.

More chilling quotes happened in real life:

"SIOP-62 included the virtual obliteration of the tiny country of Albania because within its borders sat huge Soviet air-defense radar, which had to be taken out with high assurance. Power smiled at Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and said with a mock straight face: "Well, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't have any friends or relations in Albania, because we are just going to have to wipe it out.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_...

No sane person would initiate a first strike --it's uncertain whether someone would be able to launch a full retaliatory strike. Only insane people like Castro and LeMay would give orders to launch. Today's nukes are near-civilization ending. They are not the equivalent of a month's worth of carpet bombing executed in one sortie.

The problem is if a country leader/government thinks that is worth ending civilization because there is something kind of afterlife that is better.. you hear the argument made about Iran. Not sure if I agree. But MAD breaks down if on side does not care about surving. Which makes nukes really scary..

Nukes have been civilization ending since the 1960s. You should see the plans made by American planners at the time. They joked about having to turn the nation of Albania into nothing. US has enough sensors to track when launches occur that a retaliatory strike would be launched almost immediately. Even if missiles somehow got through to the continent, we have many of them in discrete locations on submarines, waiting to launch. We are even using our navy more for missile defense since there are advantages to being mobile and ephemeral than having a fixed defensive battery that everyone can see on google earth satellite imagery.

The ability to "nuke an entire continent" isn't saber rattling, it's holding a dead man's switch. All major powers have been holding them for decades, and piling more nukes on doesn't make any difference at this point. All mutually assured destruction does is prevent attacks in the physical domain from happening*. So instead the fights continue in the political, economic, and digital domains. If anyone makes a physical attack in response to a nonphysical one, they have already lost.

* against other major powers, of course. Major powers themselves continue to test what they can get away with. Russia moving into Crimea. China saying "What? These guys have always been part of China. Do something, I dare you."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com