Mar 1, 2022·2 replies
fashion killawhat?
it totally does lmao.
the point is that, no, conflict between nuclear countries does not necessarily always lead to nuclear war. In other words, it's possible for the US to do stuff without killing us all. This is mostly because of MAD. Russia knows if they launch any nukes, they're cooked, like instantly. As such, Russia launching nukes would be a pretty stupid move for them, no?
You are arguing against this, basically saying that MAD doesn't matter and every single kind of conflict between nuclear powers will always 100% guaranteed end in nuclear war. And to support this argument that MAD does not hold up under pressure, you use an example where MAD did hold up and the only threat was caused by faulty technology. which is why i pointed that out.
It wasn't MAD, it was one colonel that disobeyed orders.
It's widely accepted that war between nuclear powers means nuclear war. MAD is about deterring the initiation of war because when there is war, full destruction by nuclear war is pretty much inevitable.
Under MAD, each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side. Either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate, irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total, and assured destruction. The doctrine requires that neither side construct shelters on a massive scale.4 If one side constructed a similar system of shelters, it would violate the MAD doctrine and destabilize the situation, because it would have less to fear from a second strike.5 The same principle is invoked against missile defense.
.
The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side would launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with surviving forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties.
Like I said, try reading something for a change lol
Mar 1, 2022https://twitter.com/ghostfacedrizzy/status/1498506860772614149
HaroldsChickenLmaooooo
sace 👍Mar 1, 2022·3 repliesOppenheimer seems to be an interesting film since Dunkirk. I'm intrigued now. Sorry, off-topic.
- Mar 1, 2022·1 reply
Pusha PIt's always bothered me that they called it Nuclear war because I feel like it implies society will still exist after its done. Like Gulf War, World War, etc
There is no chapter after a nuclear war. It's the end.
They should just call it what it is: Earth Annihilation
Exactly smh
- sace 👍Mar 1, 2022·1 reply
nuke talk got me carried away
Mar 1, 2022saceOppenheimer seems to be an interesting film since Dunkirk. I'm intrigued now. Sorry, off-topic.
- Mar 1, 2022Scratchin Mamba
Exactly smh
Shadows
- Mar 1, 2022·1 replysace
Oppenheimer seems to be an interesting film since Dunkirk. I'm intrigued now. Sorry, off-topic.
1917
- Mar 1, 2022fashion killa
man think
MAD did not stop the billion proxy wars fought between USA and USSR. it did however keep us from nuking each other.
It also keeps nuclear countries from invading each other. BUT when a country like Russia is pulling some bullshit like this, there are ways for two nuclear countries to come into conflict with each other without either country being under threat of invasion, no?
The initiatiom of war between nuclear countries you dumb f***
F*** you tryna tell me there were proxy wars during the Cold War for there's one going on right now
- Mar 1, 2022·2 repliessace
Oppenheimer seems to be an interesting film since Dunkirk. I'm intrigued now. Sorry, off-topic.
No that’s not at all off topic (it’s literally about the creator of the nuke). Oppenheimer might be one of Nolan’s biggest movies to date.
Starring the ever so steely-eyed & beautiful Cillian Murphy (known most notably for playing Thomas in Peaky Blinders).
- sace 👍Mar 1, 2022·1 replybe2sane
1917
one-shot filmmaking seems to be a gimmick tbh
- Mar 1, 2022
At we can all agree Kissinger should be killed
- Mar 1, 2022sace
nuke talk got me carried away
u up?
send nukes.
- Mar 1, 2022·1 replysace
one-shot filmmaking seems to be a gimmick tbh
idk i enjoyed it thoroughly the first time cus i wasn't expecting it
Mar 1, 2022ALPHABEARNo that’s not at all off topic (it’s literally about the creator of the nuke). Oppenheimer might be one of Nolan’s biggest movies to date.
Starring the ever so steely-eyed & beautiful Cillian Murphy (known most notably for playing Thomas in Peaky Blinders).
Cillian and Nolan ain't missed
- Mar 1, 2022·3 repliesScratchin Mamba
It wasn't MAD, it was one colonel that disobeyed orders.
It's widely accepted that war between nuclear powers means nuclear war. MAD is about deterring the initiation of war because when there is war, full destruction by nuclear war is pretty much inevitable.
Under MAD, each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side. Either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate, irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total, and assured destruction. The doctrine requires that neither side construct shelters on a massive scale.4 If one side constructed a similar system of shelters, it would violate the MAD doctrine and destabilize the situation, because it would have less to fear from a second strike.5 The same principle is invoked against missile defense.
.
The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side would launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with surviving forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties.
Like I said, try reading something for a change lol
man think
yes i know on wikipedia it says that it's meant to apply to any and all war between nuclear countries.
but seriously think about it, okay? Do you not realize that it's possible for two nuclear nations to come into conflict on the battleground of some other nation and still not end up nuking each other because MAD? Do you not realize that this has already happened multiple times in the past?
- Mar 1, 2022·1 replyfashion killa
man think
yes i know on wikipedia it says that it's meant to apply to any and all war between nuclear countries.
but seriously think about it, okay? Do you not realize that it's possible for two nuclear nations to come into conflict on the battleground of some other nation and still not end up nuking each other because MAD? Do you not realize that this has already happened multiple times in the past?
No
- Mar 1, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
No
use ur noggin bud - Mar 1, 2022·4 repliesfashion killa
man think
yes i know on wikipedia it says that it's meant to apply to any and all war between nuclear countries.
but seriously think about it, okay? Do you not realize that it's possible for two nuclear nations to come into conflict on the battleground of some other nation and still not end up nuking each other because MAD? Do you not realize that this has already happened multiple times in the past?
Do you not realize that this has already happened multiple times in the past
Name me one war between nuclear powers.
- Mar 1, 2022·1 reply
It's 2022. We ain't got no better type of country vs country system than missiles and nukes n s***??
Can't we do a like a 5 on 5 hand to hand or some s***? A hacking contest, a f***ing foot race, anything nigga
Mar 1, 2022·6 replies
- sace 👍Mar 1, 2022·1 replyALPHABEAR
No that’s not at all off topic (it’s literally about the creator of the nuke). Oppenheimer might be one of Nolan’s biggest movies to date.
Starring the ever so steely-eyed & beautiful Cillian Murphy (known most notably for playing Thomas in Peaky Blinders).
Should be a good character piece in a period of time. "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." going to be a hard, but dark line to end with.
Mar 1, 2022
Nessywhy do i feel china and russia are the only major countries with politicians that actually know history and how s*** goes down with power struggles
I think both of these countries are the most pragmatic in wanting to remove themselves from western global hegemony. China being the smartest. Russia obviously seems the most desperate and wiling to suffer greatly in the short term...and hoping it all works in their favor long term.
- Mar 1, 2022Scratchin Mamba
Do you not realize that this has already happened multiple times in the past
Name me one war between nuclear powers.
And not a PROXY war. Direct conflict.
Mar 1, 2022John Mauve