The article states that the president can use the 'biscuit' and the 'football' to instigate a nuclear attack on his sole discretion, but haven't those rules been changes in recent years to require a second government official to confirm and acknowledge the order?
Because I think I read something along those lines in a journal somewhere that was analysing some of the near accidental launches over the decades. I am not 100% sure I remembered this fact correctly, hence me framing it as a question on here in case more knowledgeable readers could confirm or deny and actually add value to the conversation...
Gotcha, didn't mean to come off aggressive but trying to understand if I missed something. To my knowledge, numerous failsafes have been improved over the years (human and technical) but the President is still the sole decider.
They have definitely adjusted procedures to correct for historic screw-ups but, given a lack of mistakes at the executive level, there's been no precedent to change the President's nuclear capabilities.
That's probably the case. Attack authorization surely involves more than opening a briefcase and pressing a big red button. (Edit, yep: 'The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff').
The Washington Post detests Trump so the purpose of this piece is not to inform, but rather to plant the potential devastation of nuclear weapons and Trump's temperament in the mind of the reader.
Perhaps the confusion stems from the difference between discretion and confirm/acknowledge? According to http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/34644, the order has to be acknowledged and verified, but cannot be overruled, and the second person (Secretary of Defense) is there to verify it, rather than check for whether it makes sense.
It does seem more than a little strange that the president has to battle with congress to get a law passed providing easier access to healthcare for people, but if they want to wipe out a good chunk of humanity then that's their prerogative.
I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons.
The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated.
The logic of nuclear deterrence still holds, and in fact deterrence should be stronger since your opponents know you have absolutely no other choices.
That's the point - remove temptation from your own politicians. That is for those who believe in a "military is for defense" doctrine. Myself, I'm not so sure the evidence for interventions abroad would support an offensive military - narrow interest groups who clearly have benefited a lot excepted.
As much as I want to agree with the overall sentiment, when one talks about defense one inevitably ends up defining a spectrum of activity beyond "protecting the Motherland from invasion". Protecting South-China Sea trade routes, is that not defending your own economy? Peacekeeping in neighboring countries like NATO did in the Balkans, is that not defending your own security and borders? But you couldn't do it with nukes or some proxy rebel army. Adventurism is bad, but even the most peaceful of strategies sooner or later will run into a situation where a non-nuclear big stick is the lesser evil.
As much as I loathe post-9/11 US foreign policy (and a lot of pre-9/11 as well, to be honest), I wouldn't want the US to lose much of their military capability at this point in time. I'd rather live with a conventional military and no nukes than the opposite scenario.
> disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons.
Then a country with conventional army and nukes would be able to attack you without using nukes and threat nuclear retaliation if you use nukes. It's rational to choose occupation over nuclear apocalypse, so you surrender (or he expects you to).
Why would any country attack you if you make it clear that an attack will result in them being annihilated? Politicians start wars when they believe the risk is worth it; they are much less likely to order troops to invade if they think it will result in them, personally, being vaporized in 15 minutes.
That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers.
I agree that a large conventional military is indispensible if you want to go the imperialist route. However, that raises the question of whether imposing your will on the entire world is legitimate. I would advocate that it is not, that it makes the world a worse place.
In a world without strong international laws, if you want to safeguard other nations from attack and promote peace, sell them nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is hard to argue with, and safeguards the weak from the strong. For example, had Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would have been deterred from invasion and the world would likely be a more peaceful place today.
> National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't.
See Russia-Ukraine war. "Uprising" starts using weapons made in Russia. They say it's not them. Do you nuke them over it?
How about later, when they carved out the part they like, and admit it was them all along, but promise "we won't go further". Do you nuke them?
How about when they formally annex that part?
It's called salami tactics, and it unfortunately works. That's why you need conventional army to defend. Well, at least if you live in a region with 19th century-style empire wannabe.
The Ukraine annexation by Russia was supported by most of the local residents, though. The way to resolve situations where regions of the country want to become independent or join another nation is by allowing them to vote on secession.
The referendum was performed with Russian army and some local thugs overseeing it with guns ready, I'm not 100% sure it was representative, but let's not argue about that here, it's offtopic anyway, because Russia didn't only invaded parts with Russian majority.
Russia also invaded parts of Ukraine that had Ukrainian majority, and war still goes on there (just less intensive). There's nothing preventing them from invading still more parts. So "let's just give away contested territories" is not a good solution - because if 30% minority is contested territory- then after giving it away - it will be contested territory for the other side as well.
Ah, but you always have another choice. You can always surrender.
Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland.
But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"?
It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. A murderer will know you'll take him down with you, but a robber can safely assume you will give up your wallet rather than blow yourself up. (Unless he fears you might be completely insane - hence Nixon's "madman theory".)
There's a fantastic clip from Yes, Minister about this very scenario - I'll see if I can find it and link it later.
> Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war
The thing is that there is no reason to believe that a nuclear exchange is necessarily the same as national suicide or will escalate to a global nuclear conflagration. The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down. What nuclear weapons do is vastly increase the risk and cost of starting a war. This is good, as wars start when politicians believe the cost is worth the benefits.
Waltz says:
"Nuclear weapons in the hands of six or seven states have lessened wars and limited conflicts. The further spread of nuclear weapons can be expected to widen those effects. Should the United States then promote the spread of nuclear weapons for the sake of peace, even though we need not for the sake of stability? To do so would replace one extreme policy with another. Present policy works hard to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. My examination of the effects of nuclear weapons leads to the conclusion that our policy is wrong without supporting the proposition that true proliferation—the rapid spread of nuclear weaponry—is desirable. Rapid change may be destabilizing. The slow spread of nuclear weapons gives states time to learn to live with them, to appreciate their virtues, and to understand the limits they place on behaviour."
> But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally?
The solution, as per Ken Waltz, is to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your remote ally should also have them!
> What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes?
This would be generally considered an act of war (what the US did to Japan pre-WW2, actually; and Nixon considered an oil embargo from the Saudis equivalent to an act of war). The critical thing is to make it clear where you are drawing the lines.
> Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"?
The United States should not start any kind of war over what happens in Berlin. But German people themselves should certainly have nuclear deterrence.
> It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence.
It is a lot more like carrying a gun for personal defence. In human societies we have the rule of law to defend us, but in international relations it's still 'might makes right', and being willing to kill is a key part of that. Now, if you are a mugger, would you be more willing to attack someone who is willing to use a gun and has no other alternative, or to attack someone who is very reluctant to use a gun and will give up their wallet if pressed? Exactly.
> There is major advantage to being or even feigning irrationality when the stakes are this high.
There is a major advantage at times to feigning rationality with a different utility function when the stakes are high to shape perceptions of your likely responses.
Irrationality is less useful, because you always want to project a clear set of preferences from which likely actions can be predicted which will strongly create an incentive for other actors to act in your interests.
> The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down.
This right here is very wise. Nuclear weapons really aren't inordinately scary. I wouldn't want to be hit by one, but I also wouldn't want to be hit by a blockbuster, a mortar, a bullet or a fist.
IMHO the real reason nukes have had so many decades of bad press is KGB agitprop from the Cold War.
> I always considered that if you believe nuclear deterrence is effective, it would be logical to disband the entire conventional military, and keep the nuclear weapons.
That only makes sense if you believe "effective" for a deterrent is a binary trait that isn't sensitive to context.
But even those who believe nuclear deterrence is effective only believe it is very (but not, for any of them, perfectly) effective against a particular range of threats, and less effective (ranging down to completely ineffective) at deterring other things that application of conventional force might be useful for.
>Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
A single person does not have the power to launch any nukes. A single person has the power to authorize the use of nukes. It still takes a number of people to actually launch nukes. And in that group many along the chain of command could/can refuse.
The football, the biscuit and the verification from secretary of defense are needed to confirm the authenticity of the authority. Secretary of defense doesn’t have veto power but he can use his judgment and refuse. Might lose his job though.
The authorization codes are used to demonstrate down the chain of command that the use of nuclear weapons has been authorized. Even after that the judgment is distributed to individuals. The president has only the authorization codes. Actual launch codes are in the hands of STRATCOM. There are generals who can refuse a direct order.
As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of State has already proven to be another warmonger.
The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. The US is the only nation in the history of mankind to have used nuclear weapons at all.
If there will ever be a nuclear war, the US is the most likely country to make it happen. Sure, some deranged dictator might fling a single nuclear missile somewhere at some point (and it will probably be intercepted before it can do any real damage) but if I had to bet on a country to end the world as we know it, all my money would be on the US.
It has also a much louder and powerful media empire, so its opinions are over represented in the world stage. The media is not objective, and is mostly pro-US.
My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid.
Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons. Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs.
And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.
Regarding your second paragraph, awareness amongst the US population should be risen about that. For the past 3 or so years Russia has been getting more and more nervous about the US defence shield. Its argument is that the US can use it for offence missiles which could be used to strike and neutralise its nuclear potential.
Instead of addressing the issue, the US has been playing dumb by claiming that "don't worry mate, this is against Iran not Russia!"
Now, Russia plays its own geopolitical game too, of course. And you might believe that the US defence shield poses no danger to Russia. But you have to ask yourself, what does Russia believe? Because if Russia really believes the US is making moves to neutralise its nuclear threat, it's just a matter of time until it strikes, because like you said the alternative is to be wiped out from the world stage. Don't corner a rat. Very very concerning.
And this has been some ten years in the making, since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (which the US argued at the name was so that it could build its missile defence system). This does not seem conducting of stability in the world.
Not just Hussein but the entire Arab Spring. Heck, the US is still trying to topple Assad although it's blindingly obvious that doing so will only strengthen ISIS in Syria.
The problem with US foreign politics is that in the face of it they seem entirely ignorant of how their actions appear to the rest of the world (and what it might mean to their interests and how they would react to that).
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying the US was responsible for the entire Arab spring, but the Arab Spring and the mess it caused (when the initial euphoria had ended) are part of the fallout from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't know whether he's stupid, but he's wilfully ignorant. I think he genuinely just doesn't care about many topics and isn't interested in learning more about them than necessary to make some vague statements that may seem relevant.
I was extremely surprised how serious Americans take Trump as a candidate when it is so obvious the vast majority of his speeches are incoherent rambling around one or two talking points played for effect.
I mean, seriously? A wall between the US and Mexico? There is already a wall between the US and Mexico. The various specifications he gave at various points throughout the primaries are obviously figures he pulled out of his ass to paint a more visually impressive picture.
And a stop for Muslim immigrants is entirely on par for the course. Sure, any other politician would have been more nuanced and phrased it differently so it doesn't sound like it's religious discrimination but let's not pretend that racism is a new thing in the US.
Trump's campaign boils down to bar-room clichés: lazy, half-baked "solutions" to real and complex problems. None of that is likely representative of what he would actually do once elected. Just like none of the "shatter the glass ceiling" and "yay minorities" rhetorics actually represent what Clinton will do once elected.
But is this Trump? I would argue that the current escalation is inherent to how policy has been conducted particularly in the recent time with Russia, alienating it instead of continuing the fruitful period which started after the fall of the Soviet Union, but more generally how humankind has (not) dealt with the nuclear arsenal.
So, tensions are bound to raise, no matter who is in the White House or in the Kremlin, simply because the arsenal is there, we have done little to get rid of it, and we have allowed the military complex to hold us hostage to a campaign of terror (I am talking about State Terror) swiping the world specially after the September 11 attacks.
And regarding Trump rhetoric: the only thing that differentiates him to other politicians is that he is able to say one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. But all politicians, continuously, say something in one moment, and the opposite in another, or say something, and do the opposite, including important issues.
So, Clinton saying "I would not use nuclear weapons, ever", is not reassuring to anybody.
Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Again: we know Clinton's stance on war and the Middle East, Russia and China. Clinton already holds a lot of political power in the US (just look at her campaign's biggest sponsors and the Clinton Foundation -- plus the entire thing with her having been the de facto blessed Democrat candidate since before the primaries even started). Trump is an outsider who has the majority of the country against him (the GOP is still reluctant to present him as "their" candidate).
Hyperbole aside, the POTUS is not actually an autocrat. There is still a large body of bureaucracy and checks and balances preventing the POTUS from doing as (s)he pleases. Clinton would only have to worry about the Republicans, Trump would likely have everyone against him at some level.
He's not innocent, but he's significantly less dangerous. He's controllable (recently he went so far as to suggest that he would cede most of his duties to his VP -- effectively just leaving the prestige and title). Clinton is not (she already has an actual agenda and is far more nuanced when it comes to manipulating people in her favour).
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see either of them become president. I would have loved to see Sanders win the primaries (simply because to me as a European he felt like a healthy counterbalance to the usual American politics) even though I was certain one of the other Republicans would have eventually won the election. But at this point you're basically forced to choose between Chaotic Evil with no political support (i.e. built-in limitations to the damage he can do) and Lawful Evil with an entire body of politics behind her (i.e. a lot of paved roads).
> Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I don't understand why. They're just commenting on something that someone else reported. Are you suggesting that they're lying? Are you suggesting that they're reporting "X happened" when X actually didn't happen? I wasn't linking for their opinion, but for what they report.
But if it makes you happier, I'll link to the original source instead:
Yeah, except "just airstrikes" is practically no different. The US is already engaging ISIS troops.
There are no "boots on the ground" in Syria as per policy, but there are American soldiers wearing boots engaging in combat activity in war zones in Syria on the ground. Except as they're not officially "boots on the ground" everybody likes to pretend the US isn't actually involved in Syria yet.
And when it comes to the decision whether to actually send humans who risk their lives and will be held accountable if they screw up, or to just continue drone strikes or bombing raids with no public accountability unless a military plane is downed -- I will prefer boots on the ground any day. War is hell. Drone war just allows one party to distance itself from the hell it is engaging in.
The US and Russia are about even in the times where a nuclear war was possible.[1] I'd argue that Russia has come closer, a submarine was going to arm and fire missles but the second in command refused to give consent.
There was another time where Russia's missle defense system showed an incoming attack.
Nuclear weapons will never be used in our lifetime by a stable country. They serve only as a deterrent, don't invade me or I'll nuke you.
The biggest chance is if an armed weapon falls into the hands of a bad actor. It's also worrisome what will happen to Russia if Putin dies without a successor.
It's going to get closer to war if Russia keeps annexing Europe.
True, but as far as I know most incidents of the USSR coming close to a nuclear strike were accidents or technical glitches. IMO it's incredibly unlikely the USSR would have had actually used nuclear weapons precisely because the military had such an aversion to actually using it.
OTOH incidents like Able Archer demonstrate exactly the kind of carelessness I'm talking about: that anyone was surprised the USSR could have mistaken a realistic, unannounced, off-schedule "simulation" near their borders for the real thing is idiotic. This kind of posturing is extremely dangerous and the US is still doing it today.
Sure, Russia and other "bad actors" are doing similar things, but the US is often going further (except for maybe the recent antics by North Korea -- which everybody expects to do ridiculously crazy things to begin with because they're a hereditary dictatorship, not a democratic republic).
That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting.
Not that anyone would be able to or interested in actually having a meaningful war with the US. We're well past the age of rolling into other people's countries with tanks and planting down a flag. A war between Russia and the US would ruin both countries' economies and neither party would come out on top -- even if the US didn't have a massive army (or Russia didn't have a massive territory).
My biggest gripe wrt US vs Russia is actually that Russia and China both have an official No-First-Use policy but the US explicitly reserves the right to a nuclear first strike (not even paying lip service as a sign of good will -- because let's face it: if Russia or China violates their NFU policy against the US it's irrelevant anyway). And while Russia has been a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament since the final years of the USSR, the US has been quite the opposite.
How is a training exercise the US's fault? This was a NATO operation in Europe. At the time we werent speaking to Russia very much. Military exercises happen all the time between many countries.
Lets not forget that Russia had just shot down a civilian airliner that had a US congressman on board.[1] Could you imagine if the US brought down a plane with Russian politicians on it during the cold war. When has the US ever brought down a civilian airliner? Russia just did this again last year over Ukraine.[2]
>That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting.
I understand your sentiment but North Korea and Iran are currently trying to develop Nukes for this sole purpose. Your pointing all your fingers at the US but the fact is everyone else is either doing it or trying to do it.
Not to mention Russia is annexing sovereign nations.[3][4] I am not saying this meaning we should start a war with Russia but when the US "invades" somewhere we do not annex the country. The Iraq war was a huge mistake but maybe if we stayed a little longer ISIS its possible would never have happened. Unfortunately politics came into play way after the mistake. In no way am I trying to make excuses.
Here are some fresh examples of Chinese and Russian/Chinese military exercises in a disputed area.[5] Another example from 2 days ago where they are shooting missiles. [6]
Everyone wants to point fingers at the US when their own governments are either actively doing the same things, or making deals with the US to do the same thing. Spying on communications has been going on since WW2 and even before.
This is why I roll my eyes every time Hillary tries to use nuclear weapons for scaremongering. Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to use nukes. Hillary needs to get realistic here.
I hope the question is rhetorical, since if the information is indeed deliberately hidden and only false stories are made public, the few who know the real story are unlikely to post about it here on HN. So whoever answers the question either doesn't know anything or is trying to mislead you (further) :)
The military actually opposed PALs. They considered them to be an additional point of failure, and did everything in their power to prevent having them installed. Once you understand this, the decision to set all nuclear launch codes to 00000000 starts to make a little more sense.
Posted as a reply, but if you want to read more about the command and control structure in the US, and why it evolved as it did (tl;dr paranoia during the cold war for the most part) the excellent Command and Control is a good intro to the subject: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser/dp/0...
74 comments
[ 974 ms ] story [ 2045 ms ] threadThey have definitely adjusted procedures to correct for historic screw-ups but, given a lack of mistakes at the executive level, there's been no precedent to change the President's nuclear capabilities.
The Washington Post detests Trump so the purpose of this piece is not to inform, but rather to plant the potential devastation of nuclear weapons and Trump's temperament in the mind of the reader.
Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be revisited?
http://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/26/u-s-airlines-use-two-cr...
Not an ideal situation, but it's where things stand.
The advantage would be you save an enormous amount of money, and vastly reduce the size of government. Politicians will stop being tempted to invade and interfere in other countries, and grievances against your country are reduced or eliminated.
The logic of nuclear deterrence still holds, and in fact deterrence should be stronger since your opponents know you have absolutely no other choices.
As much as I loathe post-9/11 US foreign policy (and a lot of pre-9/11 as well, to be honest), I wouldn't want the US to lose much of their military capability at this point in time. I'd rather live with a conventional military and no nukes than the opposite scenario.
Then a country with conventional army and nukes would be able to attack you without using nukes and threat nuclear retaliation if you use nukes. It's rational to choose occupation over nuclear apocalypse, so you surrender (or he expects you to).
It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.
That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers.
I agree that a large conventional military is indispensible if you want to go the imperialist route. However, that raises the question of whether imposing your will on the entire world is legitimate. I would advocate that it is not, that it makes the world a worse place.
In a world without strong international laws, if you want to safeguard other nations from attack and promote peace, sell them nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is hard to argue with, and safeguards the weak from the strong. For example, had Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would have been deterred from invasion and the world would likely be a more peaceful place today.
See Russia-Ukraine war. "Uprising" starts using weapons made in Russia. They say it's not them. Do you nuke them over it?
How about later, when they carved out the part they like, and admit it was them all along, but promise "we won't go further". Do you nuke them?
How about when they formally annex that part?
It's called salami tactics, and it unfortunately works. That's why you need conventional army to defend. Well, at least if you live in a region with 19th century-style empire wannabe.
Russia also invaded parts of Ukraine that had Ukrainian majority, and war still goes on there (just less intensive). There's nothing preventing them from invading still more parts. So "let's just give away contested territories" is not a good solution - because if 30% minority is contested territory- then after giving it away - it will be contested territory for the other side as well.
We've tried this after WW1 and it didn't worked.
Now, sure, you might be unwilling to surrender, and willing to risk a global nuclear war, over a direct invasion of your homeland.
But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally? What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes? Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"?
It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence. A murderer will know you'll take him down with you, but a robber can safely assume you will give up your wallet rather than blow yourself up. (Unless he fears you might be completely insane - hence Nixon's "madman theory".)
There's a fantastic clip from Yes, Minister about this very scenario - I'll see if I can find it and link it later.
The thing is that there is no reason to believe that a nuclear exchange is necessarily the same as national suicide or will escalate to a global nuclear conflagration. The political scientist Ken Waltz made this point quite forcefully (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm): even if one or two nuclear bombs are exchanged, there is still every incentive for the parties to calm down. What nuclear weapons do is vastly increase the risk and cost of starting a war. This is good, as wars start when politicians believe the cost is worth the benefits.
Waltz says:
"Nuclear weapons in the hands of six or seven states have lessened wars and limited conflicts. The further spread of nuclear weapons can be expected to widen those effects. Should the United States then promote the spread of nuclear weapons for the sake of peace, even though we need not for the sake of stability? To do so would replace one extreme policy with another. Present policy works hard to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. My examination of the effects of nuclear weapons leads to the conclusion that our policy is wrong without supporting the proposition that true proliferation—the rapid spread of nuclear weaponry—is desirable. Rapid change may be destabilizing. The slow spread of nuclear weapons gives states time to learn to live with them, to appreciate their virtues, and to understand the limits they place on behaviour."
> But what about, say, a covert invasion of a remote ally under the pretext of peacekeeping? What about military support for a coup in a nearby ally?
The solution, as per Ken Waltz, is to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your remote ally should also have them!
> What about a gradual strangling of your trade and resource routes?
This would be generally considered an act of war (what the US did to Japan pre-WW2, actually; and Nixon considered an oil embargo from the Saudis equivalent to an act of war). The critical thing is to make it clear where you are drawing the lines.
> Are you EVER going to say "ok, THIS is the last straw, we're starting a nuclear war NOW because you blocked all roads to Berlin"?
The United States should not start any kind of war over what happens in Berlin. But German people themselves should certainly have nuclear deterrence.
> It's like wearing a suicide vest for personal defence.
It is a lot more like carrying a gun for personal defence. In human societies we have the rule of law to defend us, but in international relations it's still 'might makes right', and being willing to kill is a key part of that. Now, if you are a mugger, would you be more willing to attack someone who is willing to use a gun and has no other alternative, or to attack someone who is very reluctant to use a gun and will give up their wallet if pressed? Exactly.
There is major advantage to being or even feigning irrationality when the stakes are this high.
There is a major advantage at times to feigning rationality with a different utility function when the stakes are high to shape perceptions of your likely responses.
Irrationality is less useful, because you always want to project a clear set of preferences from which likely actions can be predicted which will strongly create an incentive for other actors to act in your interests.
This right here is very wise. Nuclear weapons really aren't inordinately scary. I wouldn't want to be hit by one, but I also wouldn't want to be hit by a blockbuster, a mortar, a bullet or a fist.
IMHO the real reason nukes have had so many decades of bad press is KGB agitprop from the Cold War.
That only makes sense if you believe "effective" for a deterrent is a binary trait that isn't sensitive to context.
But even those who believe nuclear deterrence is effective only believe it is very (but not, for any of them, perfectly) effective against a particular range of threats, and less effective (ranging down to completely ineffective) at deterring other things that application of conventional force might be useful for.
A single person does not have the power to launch any nukes. A single person has the power to authorize the use of nukes. It still takes a number of people to actually launch nukes. And in that group many along the chain of command could/can refuse.
The authorization codes are used to demonstrate down the chain of command that the use of nuclear weapons has been authorized. Even after that the judgment is distributed to individuals. The president has only the authorization codes. Actual launch codes are in the hands of STRATCOM. There are generals who can refuse a direct order.
The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. The US is the only nation in the history of mankind to have used nuclear weapons at all.
If there will ever be a nuclear war, the US is the most likely country to make it happen. Sure, some deranged dictator might fling a single nuclear missile somewhere at some point (and it will probably be intercepted before it can do any real damage) but if I had to bet on a country to end the world as we know it, all my money would be on the US.
That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.
Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.
Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.
Instead of addressing the issue, the US has been playing dumb by claiming that "don't worry mate, this is against Iran not Russia!"
Now, Russia plays its own geopolitical game too, of course. And you might believe that the US defence shield poses no danger to Russia. But you have to ask yourself, what does Russia believe? Because if Russia really believes the US is making moves to neutralise its nuclear threat, it's just a matter of time until it strikes, because like you said the alternative is to be wiped out from the world stage. Don't corner a rat. Very very concerning.
And this has been some ten years in the making, since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (which the US argued at the name was so that it could build its missile defence system). This does not seem conducting of stability in the world.
The problem with US foreign politics is that in the face of it they seem entirely ignorant of how their actions appear to the rest of the world (and what it might mean to their interests and how they would react to that).
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying the US was responsible for the entire Arab spring, but the Arab Spring and the mess it caused (when the initial euphoria had ended) are part of the fallout from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I was extremely surprised how serious Americans take Trump as a candidate when it is so obvious the vast majority of his speeches are incoherent rambling around one or two talking points played for effect.
I mean, seriously? A wall between the US and Mexico? There is already a wall between the US and Mexico. The various specifications he gave at various points throughout the primaries are obviously figures he pulled out of his ass to paint a more visually impressive picture.
And a stop for Muslim immigrants is entirely on par for the course. Sure, any other politician would have been more nuanced and phrased it differently so it doesn't sound like it's religious discrimination but let's not pretend that racism is a new thing in the US.
Trump's campaign boils down to bar-room clichés: lazy, half-baked "solutions" to real and complex problems. None of that is likely representative of what he would actually do once elected. Just like none of the "shatter the glass ceiling" and "yay minorities" rhetorics actually represent what Clinton will do once elected.
Did you mean Trump (not Clinton)?
So, tensions are bound to raise, no matter who is in the White House or in the Kremlin, simply because the arsenal is there, we have done little to get rid of it, and we have allowed the military complex to hold us hostage to a campaign of terror (I am talking about State Terror) swiping the world specially after the September 11 attacks.
And regarding Trump rhetoric: the only thing that differentiates him to other politicians is that he is able to say one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. But all politicians, continuously, say something in one moment, and the opposite in another, or say something, and do the opposite, including important issues.
So, Clinton saying "I would not use nuclear weapons, ever", is not reassuring to anybody.
Again: we know Clinton's stance on war and the Middle East, Russia and China. Clinton already holds a lot of political power in the US (just look at her campaign's biggest sponsors and the Clinton Foundation -- plus the entire thing with her having been the de facto blessed Democrat candidate since before the primaries even started). Trump is an outsider who has the majority of the country against him (the GOP is still reluctant to present him as "their" candidate).
Hyperbole aside, the POTUS is not actually an autocrat. There is still a large body of bureaucracy and checks and balances preventing the POTUS from doing as (s)he pleases. Clinton would only have to worry about the Republicans, Trump would likely have everyone against him at some level.
He's not innocent, but he's significantly less dangerous. He's controllable (recently he went so far as to suggest that he would cede most of his duties to his VP -- effectively just leaving the prestige and title). Clinton is not (she already has an actual agenda and is far more nuanced when it comes to manipulating people in her favour).
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see either of them become president. I would have loved to see Sanders win the primaries (simply because to me as a European he felt like a healthy counterbalance to the usual American politics) even though I was certain one of the other Republicans would have eventually won the election. But at this point you're basically forced to choose between Chaotic Evil with no political support (i.e. built-in limitations to the damage he can do) and Lawful Evil with an entire body of politics behind her (i.e. a lot of paved roads).
I don't understand why. They're just commenting on something that someone else reported. Are you suggesting that they're lying? Are you suggesting that they're reporting "X happened" when X actually didn't happen? I wasn't linking for their opinion, but for what they report.
But if it makes you happier, I'll link to the original source instead:
https://youtu.be/O13kaQAg5KE
Can you please do me a favour and watch that?
> He's controllable
Ok, now you're just trolling me.
I'll call your attention to "Should the US formally declare war on ISIS?"
There are no "boots on the ground" in Syria as per policy, but there are American soldiers wearing boots engaging in combat activity in war zones in Syria on the ground. Except as they're not officially "boots on the ground" everybody likes to pretend the US isn't actually involved in Syria yet.
And when it comes to the decision whether to actually send humans who risk their lives and will be held accountable if they screw up, or to just continue drone strikes or bombing raids with no public accountability unless a military plane is downed -- I will prefer boots on the ground any day. War is hell. Drone war just allows one party to distance itself from the hell it is engaging in.
There was another time where Russia's missle defense system showed an incoming attack.
Nuclear weapons will never be used in our lifetime by a stable country. They serve only as a deterrent, don't invade me or I'll nuke you.
The biggest chance is if an armed weapon falls into the hands of a bad actor. It's also worrisome what will happen to Russia if Putin dies without a successor.
It's going to get closer to war if Russia keeps annexing Europe.
[1]http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-c...
OTOH incidents like Able Archer demonstrate exactly the kind of carelessness I'm talking about: that anyone was surprised the USSR could have mistaken a realistic, unannounced, off-schedule "simulation" near their borders for the real thing is idiotic. This kind of posturing is extremely dangerous and the US is still doing it today.
Sure, Russia and other "bad actors" are doing similar things, but the US is often going further (except for maybe the recent antics by North Korea -- which everybody expects to do ridiculously crazy things to begin with because they're a hereditary dictatorship, not a democratic republic).
That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting.
Not that anyone would be able to or interested in actually having a meaningful war with the US. We're well past the age of rolling into other people's countries with tanks and planting down a flag. A war between Russia and the US would ruin both countries' economies and neither party would come out on top -- even if the US didn't have a massive army (or Russia didn't have a massive territory).
My biggest gripe wrt US vs Russia is actually that Russia and China both have an official No-First-Use policy but the US explicitly reserves the right to a nuclear first strike (not even paying lip service as a sign of good will -- because let's face it: if Russia or China violates their NFU policy against the US it's irrelevant anyway). And while Russia has been a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament since the final years of the USSR, the US has been quite the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
How is a training exercise the US's fault? This was a NATO operation in Europe. At the time we werent speaking to Russia very much. Military exercises happen all the time between many countries.
Lets not forget that Russia had just shot down a civilian airliner that had a US congressman on board.[1] Could you imagine if the US brought down a plane with Russian politicians on it during the cold war. When has the US ever brought down a civilian airliner? Russia just did this again last year over Ukraine.[2]
>That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting.
I understand your sentiment but North Korea and Iran are currently trying to develop Nukes for this sole purpose. Your pointing all your fingers at the US but the fact is everyone else is either doing it or trying to do it.
Not to mention Russia is annexing sovereign nations.[3][4] I am not saying this meaning we should start a war with Russia but when the US "invades" somewhere we do not annex the country. The Iraq war was a huge mistake but maybe if we stayed a little longer ISIS its possible would never have happened. Unfortunately politics came into play way after the mistake. In no way am I trying to make excuses.
Here are some fresh examples of Chinese and Russian/Chinese military exercises in a disputed area.[5] Another example from 2 days ago where they are shooting missiles. [6]
Everyone wants to point fingers at the US when their own governments are either actively doing the same things, or making deals with the US to do the same thing. Spying on communications has been going on since WW2 and even before.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Aftermath
[5]http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/28/south...
[6]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/02/asia-pacific/chi...
It has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
British nukes were protected by bike locks - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm
Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link
Boggle.