It takes some time for a nuke to fly to it's destination. During that time the target country can detect the missile and retaliate. You don't want to take that risk.

Google second strike

>>64664286
>but if one uses it then the other party would be so fucked as to not even retaliate
That was only the case during the early years of the Cold War, when everyone still relied on bomber aircraft.

After ICBMs were invented and deployed in hardened subterranean missile silos and submarines, it was no longer possible for a first strike to disable the enemy's ability to retaliate.

>other party would be so fucked as to not retaliate
The entire fucking point of MAD is that enough of the defending party's arsenal will survive that they *can* retaliate with enough nukes to wipe most of the attacker's cities off the map. Meaning that both the attacker and the defender cease to exist as functional nations if a nuclear exchange occurs, and thus everyone loses aka Mutually Assured Destruction.

Deterrence is the same concept, except that the attacker loses one or more cities instead of all of them. This is survivable, but still sucks incredibly hard, and there are very few things worth invading or nuking someone over that is worth the loss of a single major city due to a retaliation strike.

This is why disrupting technology like MIRV ICBMs and Ballistic Missile Defense fuck with MAD/Deterrence. If you can lob enough warheads to kill most of your opponent's missiles on the ground, and then shoot down the few surviving warheads that get launched, then everything falls apart and Mutual Destruction is no longer Assured (and depending on the level of overmatch, Deterrence may not even be effective if the ABM is reliable enough).

File: Nuclear Chicken.png (10 KB, 553x270)

10 KB PNG

>>64664286
>I don't get nuclear deterrence
In simple terms, consider Game Theory. Look it up on Wikipedia if you want the full explanation, but TL:DR it's an analysis of conflict through analyzing the utility gained by either party from any combination of actions to determine which circumstance is likely to prevail. A key component of Game Theory is that both players are rational (which doesn't always happen IRL) and that both players know the payoff for the other as well as for themselves. (Which for nuclear war IS the case.)

For the situation in which both states have nuclear weapons, the negative payoff from both sides choosing to instigate a nuclear war is so extensive that both sides, in self-preservation, will opt not to act. Hence, the threat of nuclear war acts to deter a nation with nuclear weapons from attacking one which also possesses nuclear weapons.

For the situation in which only one state has nuclear weapons, both sides are aware that the nuclear-armed state would receive more utility by using nuclear weapons if it were attacked, but would lose utility if it performed a first-strike nuclear attack. Hence, even if a nation without nuclear weapons can muster a sizable conventional force against another nation with nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear retaliation will keep them from attacking: Again, both sides choosing to do nothing will maximize their utility, so they will do that.

It gets more complicated with the concepts of second strikes, disrupting technology, and non-military warfare (espionage, sabotage, electoral warfare, economic warfare, cybernetic warfare, etc) But the basics of MAD are that it creates a situation where "the only winning move is not to play." Hence, deterring use of the bomb.

>>64664286
>what is second strike
>what is the absolute shitton of satellites combing every square inch of planet Earth 24/7/365
>what is literally every single missile launch detection system ever invented
you stupid fucking nigger. it's not "two snipers hiding from each other and whoever fires second has only a few seconds to fire back before the first bullet reaches them", it's "two rival gangs sitting in opposite buildings on the same street, and whoever stands up first and pulls the blicky out is gonna get seen through the storefront window by the other gang, starting a full-on gang war where both sides start blasting" except unlike most gangs there are systems in place to prevent a lone Jamal chimping out and causing the end of the world. hopefully the comparison is one you can relate to.

>>64664286
>I don't get nuclear deterrence
Then you're either a moron or you haven't read enough

>>64664396
>i have a massive pile of superweapons but I promise I will never ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER use them
>i really promise
Amazing stuff

>>64664418
>I have a massive pile of superweapons
>hey, I also have a massive pile of superweapons, and if you ever dare use even one of them on anything that isn't your own soil for testing I am going to use every single one I have on you
>well if you ever use YOUR superweapons for anything that isn't testing on your own soil I'll use mine and reduce you to superhot slag
>it would seem we are at an impasse
>indeed
how fucking hard to understand can it be, you moron?

>>64664542
Because of human nature, read Kant, you cunt

>>64664551
>being a human being, I want to be alive
>being bombed will lead to me not being alive
>my opponent has bombs, which, if used on me, will lead to me not being alive
>I also have bombs
>my opponent, (possibly) also a human being, wants to be alive
>being bombed will lead to them not being alive
>in order to remain alive, we both agree not to bomb each other
whatever stupid "will to power" argument you're trying to make has fallen flat on its face for the past 70+ years. shut the fuck up.
>"will to power was Nietzche not Kant!"
fuck off. maybe your brown ass is a slave to its impulses (among many other things), but the civilized world can rise above its baser functions to ensure its continued survival. (or at the very least, one side can and the other has been buttfucked into understanding it's in its own best interest to play ball.)

>>64664563
>erm bro everyone knows politicians and people in positions of power in the military are super stable and rational just like you and me
Are these seriously the tards I have to deal with on this site?
Also der wille zur macht was Kant you stupid fuck

>>64664575
if you can't understand deterrence, you probably shouldn't be calling other stupid

>>64664579
What I'm saying is that it isn't working, it's only working due to social pressure and morality, if there wouldn't be massive press blowback then these countries would nuke places like Africa or Russia instantly

>>64664581
why the fuck would anyone nuke africa

>>64664581
>if there wouldn't be massive press blowback
It has nothing to do with the press, it has to do with the fact that people in power want to stay in power, and you can't be in power if you're dead or your nation is so absolutely fucked there's nothing left to maintain power over.

File: imbecile.png (1004 KB, 1066x1566)

1004 KB PNG

>>64664575
>Der Wille zur Macht was Kant
do you just enjoy being wrong or do you get paid to say dumb shit like that?
>>64664581
>it isn't working, it's only working
so it's working

>>64664585
Something to do on the weekend

>>64664601
meant to say wasn't, give me a break otherwise I'll nuke you

>>64664604
Do it faggot

File: file.png (204 KB, 480x360)

204 KB PNG

>>64664608
That's it buster, no more military aid!

File: cretin.png (122 KB, 932x476)

122 KB PNG

>>64664604
so you just enjoy being stupid. gotcha.

>>64664610
>um you can't just heckin impose your will on the world through violence ok sweaty? :)
>the government and state can and if you have any issue you'll be thrown in prison as a dissenter but stop being such a baby
OK bootlicking faggot

>>64664611
you are a brown dog and a dedovshchina enjoyer. I am genuinely surprised you have the mental fortitude to solve the new captcha. or maybe your handlers do it for you? enjoy your rubles/rupies/yuan.

>>64664619
>le everyone who le disagrees with me is brown
Must be summer

Real MAD ha bever been tried.

You guys don't get it, OP read philosophy, and if he can't understand it, how can you?

I see..the will to power is fucking whores and dying due to AIDS...der ubermensch have arrived..

>>64664286
>the other party would be so fucked as to not even retaliate
Nope, that's why SSBNs exist.

Guys, you can't explain MAD to chinkoids because they have no conception of unacceptable losses. They would happily trade every bug in Beijing in exchange for glassing Taiwan, Japan, and/or the Koreas, and the only reason they don't is because they know the West would exterminate every last one of them if they tried it.

What a retarded thread.

Anyway, nukes exist so at some point we're going to have a nuclear war. Hopefully I'll be long dead before then. Once any country uses a nuke on another country at any capacity, there will be more nukes to come. Countries may not abide by International Rule of blah blah but they certainly don't want to be the first country since America to drop the big one.

>>64664286
>but if one uses it then the other party would be so fucked as to not even retaliate
That's wrong.
Let's take an example. London gets nuked. No more British government.
Their boats have Trident nuclear warheads. They can be launched anywhere, land almost anywhere, and it is nearly impossible to perfectly intercept the whole salvo.
Critically, they require no approval. They don't need to phone up the Prime Minister and ask for codes. They don't even have specific locked targets. The captain has authority to launch them at any target he wants. He might not even do it right away. He could wait a few months. A nuclear sub can hunker down for a few months, but your country can't, so forget moving everyone into shelters or some other cope.
With boomer subs, you CAN retaliate, unless if you want to somehow find all of the active boats at sea and destroy them all, then nuke the target before they notice their boats were destroyed.

You see, nuclear weapons in the modern day are used mostly to blackmail other countries, people think that they will never be used. So here's the situation
>I have the nukes I can do whatever the fuck I want
>Oh yeah? I have the nukes too, I will fucking kill you if you try anything
>No you won't because I will nuke you back!
>*player 1 continues to be a retard pushing things further and further because like I said, no one thinks anyone will ever use nukes*

and here's the kicker eventually, someone will have to use the nukes to break the blackmailing thing

>>64664590
this. but also you want more power so you fuck around with other powers trying to be the top dog. One day someone will be tired of your bullshit and will just use the shit, if nothing else will work

>>64664418
>but I promise I will never ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER use them
>>i really promise
Except this is nobody's position. Turns out you're a moron

>>64664286
>but if one uses it then the other party would be so fucked as to not even retaliate
And that's where you're wrong.

>>64665053
We can always start with a warning shot, obliterating some insignificant fleet at sea or some airfield in the desert.

File: Agni_Missile_Range_compar(...).png (186 KB, 1381x700)

186 KB PNG

>>64664310
>it was no longer possible for a first strike to disable the enemy's ability to retaliate.
I feel like the US could probably pull off a suckerpunch counterforce strike on India. They only have two boomers, geography is on the US's side and most of their stuff is focused on pulverizing Pakistan not getting blindsided from the other side of the world.

Considering all it takes is one rogue actor to do something retarded, is it safe to say nuclear war is inevitable?
I find it incredibly astonishing that we've made it this long without having some sort of exchange.

>>64665053
>someone will have to use the nukes to break the blackmailing thing
Not necessarily. There were way more heinous instances of killing, espionage, playing chicken during the cold war. But it never escalated to nuclear use because nobody can guarantee that they can control nuclear escalation. That's why the simmering "I'm not touching you" behavior is so normal.

>>64665176
Can you guarantee that once you start going up the nuclear escalation ladder that you can control where is stops? Even with all our technology the answer thus far has always been no.

>>64665223
>one rogue actor
Like who? Anyone setting off a nuke, even in a clandestine manner would get immediately found out through those radiation tracking signatures and the raped out of existence for daring to use a nuke

>>64665176
>Ok, that's it : I have enough of these motherfuckers pushing us around.
>Let's bring 'hem down a peg, shall we ?
>Target their fleet. Or that air base in the desert. With a nuke. a small one.
If anyone is doing that, either they don't care dying over a misunderstanding or they will announcing so loudly that the target will have evacuated by the time the nuke hits.
And even if they announce "look, it's only a small atomic weapon and it will NOT target your cities", you can bet there'll be some trust issues in the way.
Even if the other side believes it, they might just say "fuck it, we'll do it too then". Will your side be ready to trust it ?
And even then, would you then say "ok we both showed we aren't bluffing so let's stop before we actually wipe each other", knowing now that you are giving time for the other side to actually prepare for a full strike ?

>>64665223
If the "rogue actor" only has a limited supply of nukes, then that's what ABMD is for : to intercept a limited amount of missiles in a limited window so that we can just ignore the smaller nations / terrorist organizations.
You intercept their missiles then give them a stern look while asking politely for their leader's head. Since nobody got hurt, things do not even have to escalate into conventional war.

The danger is once a country get a lot of nukes and isn't a stable regime with checks and balances to the executive going mad.
Then it can potentially go for a surprise massive first strike that you won't be able to intercept, at which point you got no real choice except to fire back.

>>64664368
Those two bottom squares in the second grid are wrong. They should be
A: 0
C: -1000
and
A: -1
C: -1000

>>64664286
>but if one uses it then the other party would be so fucked as to not even retaliat
there are several mechanisms in place to prevent exactly that, so even if your country gets whiped out, whoever attacks you dies too