Hacker News Reader

Comment by krapp | Hacker News Reader

They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained.

If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.

View on HN

Americans WANT the imperialism and genuinely believe that becoming an American second tier citizen is something everyone wants.

MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov.

States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.

>States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.

"Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power.

And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.

I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors.

I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible.

The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.

Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.

Yes I believe this was the line of thinking that has lead us to the invasion of Iran. So it doesn't appear to be a viable strategy. The US can dispatch a strike group faster than any country can build a nuke, let alone enough nukes to actually make a difference. North Korea only succeeded because of its close ties with China and Russia, and perhaps because previous administrations weren't so brazen as to invade them.

An alternative, as always, is to work towards our strengths as middle-powers. Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical.

And of course, while Russia is the leader in this area, it's not the only country that could balkanize the US through "peaceful" means.

North Korea isn’t the only country that got a nuke by not playing the rules…

USA attacked Iran for no reason, because it was weak and Israel + probably saudi wanted so. It wont stop there either, it will go on to Cuba, Greenland and Canada. Meanwhile, Europe will become unstable due to new waves of refugees and expanding Russia.

USA dispatching strikes at will based on incoherent reasons, is just another reason why everyone needs nukes now. And they need them before they are an active target, because yes, it takes years.

And no, it is not about Iran being evil. Trump does not care about that at all. He even wanted to keep the regime as is (to the extend there was a vague concept of a maybe plan).

> Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical.

That made everyone vulnerable to Trump.

> States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power

Who? Trump, literally nazi Miller and Vance to destroy them and steal their resources? Putin, lets see how their satelite states do. Oh, China?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com