Fear monger often? Old tech isn't unreliable per se, certainly not when it's tested & refurbed regularly.
Didn't read through the thread so this has probably been addressed, but our nuclear arsenal is frighteningly outdated. I'm much less concerned about their ability to strike (which I'm sure they are capable of) compared to something going wrong and one being detonated unintentionally due to old tech. We don't need more nukes - and less is most assuredly better - but we do need to modernize them.
You misunderstand my point. Germany entered the war then because they thought they could still win THEN, but thought that victory would be impossible in the near future due to the increasing military power of Russia. Therefore they decided to enter into war then instead of later. It's very easy to see how this applies to the current situation. Imagine the US is building a 'perfect' BMD system. You can't build that overnight, meaning there will be a period where foreign powers with strategic nuclear arsenals still have an effective counter to ours but can see a time in the near future where they no longer will. That provides a very strong incentive to act rashly. Does it make more sense now as to why BMD systems are destabilizing?
So for sake of argument I'll agree an "alliance" was a new technology and that Germany acted for the reasons you cited (I disagree but that's beside the point). That's still only one example you said history is "full of them." Surely with so many to choose from you can cite one where a new technology was the proximate cause of the war and will be directly relevant to why Russia or others would attack America if we were to build a BMD system.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.You seem to act as if arming the United States with the best and state of the art nuclear weapons is a bad thing.
Go listen to the hardcore history podcasts and you will find the theme repeating itself.
So then why didn't the U.S. attack the USSR when we had nukes and they were just developing the capability? Wasn't that just as destabilizing as us coming up with a BMD system? That's a direct analogue to the "victory would be impossible later" situation you think drove Germany's actions. Plus, even if we used your "logic" then why wouldn't we just keep the construction of the system a secret until it was operational? That would moot your idea that Russia or whoever would launch a pre-emptive strike.
Of you can just be more honest with both yourself and us and admit that you don't want such a system built because you actually secretly prefer the "stability" of the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm over one where the U.S. achieves a position of superiority - you fear the U.S. "winning" as much or more than the idea that you might die by atomic fire.
Like I said, I'll wait while you go dig up those podcasts and cite examples to consider. Considering the technological advances of the last century or so that you'd have plenty of example right at hand. For example. when the U.S. debuted stealth technology that would have allowed a credible first strike capability against the USSR surely they preemptively retaliated before war with the U.S. was "unwinnable" correct? Or now when the U.S. is researching directed energy, railguns, and hypersonic weapons that will obsolete the Chinese surely they're gearing up to attack us at this very moment?
Or can we all just admit the obvious that such thinking is complete and utter bullshit and the Russians nor anyone else would do jack-shit if we developed and deployed BDM. To call it "destabilizing" is a complete and utter load of crap and if anything might be the most STABILIZING force in modern history.
It's actually not a direct analogue as Germany was afraid of being destroyed itself instead of the US being afraid of not being able to destroy other nations as easily. Surely anyone can see the large difference there.
Also, I have no idea how you think we would be able to keep the construction of a BMD system sufficiently strong to thwart a strategic nuclear attack a secret until it was operational. There is only one economically feasible system for strategic BMD defense and that is a mid course intercept system that takes place in space. There's no way you're hiding that much hardware in space without people knowing what it is.
How about you be honest and just admit you hadn't thought this through instead of trying to assign secret motivations to me?
LOL, sure. Hopefully you don't piss the bed in fear someday when the U.S. does develop and deploy a BMD system. Because it makes perfect sense that would cause Russia to attack us because reasons.
Like I said, I'll wait while you go dig up those podcasts and cite examples to consider. Considering the technological advances of the last century or so that you'd have plenty of example right at hand. For example. when the U.S. debuted stealth technology that would have allowed a credible first strike capability against the USSR surely they preemptively retaliated before war with the U.S. was "unwinnable" correct? Or now when the U.S. is researching directed energy, railguns, and hypersonic weapons that will obsolete the Chinese surely they're gearing up to attack us at this very moment?
Or can we all just admit the obvious that such thinking is complete and utter bullshit and the Russians nor anyone else would do jack-shit if we developed and deployed BDM. To call it "destabilizing" is a complete and utter load of crap and if anything might be the most STABILIZING force in modern history.
People are willing to destroy the entire world over their silly politics.
When will humans ever wake up? If not now, then when?
mongol horde horse archers is one.
Thanks for your concern! It's always a pretty clear sign when you've lost an argument as you descend into petty insults.
You're welcome. Maybe at some point you'll start thinking and reconsider why you think the Russians would preeemptively attack the U.S. and guarantee a loss via WMD because they feared the potential that they might someday lose a future war due to development of BMD. With your obvious expert level grasp of game theory I could see why you'd feel a move with a 100% loss probability is a something the Russians would do.
Nothing happens in this world without America's fingerprints on it. (Or more specifically, nothing happens without the fingerprints of those who control America and its closest allies.)It was recently discovered that the USA has been testing newly created nuclear warheads for other countries. The USA is definitely not idle.
So who preemptively attacked the Mongols because they feared being able to compete with horse archers?
Nothing happens in this world without America's fingerprints on it. (Or more specifically, nothing happens without the fingerprints of those who control America and its closest allies.)
A country doesn't become as dominant as America has become by not being involved in everything. Also, the more dominant a country becomes, the more deceptive it becomes in order to hold on to that power and maybe even become more dominant.Needs 25% more tinfoil.
Ahh the left is again showing us its true colors.
Its ok if Iran, China, Russia, anyone that hates America works on getting better, more modern nukes. But if the USA does it, we are terrible evil people.