Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Nuclear primacy means that the country that has it can launch a first strike and survive it without significant retaliation.

Reply to first paragraph: This effect is achieved by nuclear MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). There is no need for nuclear primacy for this effect.

To last paragraph: WRONG. Israel has about 200 nuclear bombs - this is the deterrent and not their conventional army (which may or may not have primacy). Their conventional army failed miserably in Lebanon. Anti-tank missiles are now CHEAP and I believe this negates superiority of their conventional army.

Nuclear primacy has one and only ONE use. The one who has it, can do whatever they want (USA could blackmail Russia). It is NOT STABLE.

Lets compare mutually assured destruction (MAD) with Nuclear Primacy.

MAD:
First strike => retaliation: LOSE-LOSE
All scenarios are like this, this is STABLE.

Nuclear primacy (assuming USA primacy, Russia antagonist):
USA first strike => no retaliation: WIN-LOSE
Russia first strike => retaliation: LOSE-LOSE

Nuclear primacy would encourage Russia to launch a first strike, because they may rightfully fear that otherwise the US would use nuclear primacy against them and they will be destroyed without retaliation. Russia has everything to lose with a US nuclear primacy. This is a situation that Russia must avoid at ALL COSTS, because this would make them very vulnerable. If Obama does not stop the missile shield program, Russia will become VERY-VERY UPSET. We are already moving towards this, look at Medvedev's reaction to the US election.
President Dmitri Medvedev orders missiles deployed in Europe as world hails Obama


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5090077.ece

Russia is signaling that IT WILL NOT ACCEPT nuclear primacy of the USA.

Here is my response from above:

#13 Today, 12:02 PM

jtabeb iTulip Select Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Randolph AFB TX Posts: 642

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View Quote: Originally Posted by VIT Depends on the problem :rolleyes:. Now US has the primacy in conventional military and still uses it. What do you think is the ultimate goal of US anti-missile shield and why it is developed. Could you tell it will make the world safer. There is, I would claim, the last line in the sand. Conventional is one thing, a big bad bloody thing, but he who uses the first nuke chooses to end the world. Our first stike position basically is "we know this will end the world, but we WOULD do it if we are going to be destroyed" Make no mistake about that and also do not underestimate the military's grasp of this significant fact. (yes, we have our Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson's out there, but that's why we have civilian control of the military and not the otherway 'round). The anti-missle shield was/is an ultamately doomed effort to impose limited nuclear primacy on russia. You can see that limited and priamcy are mutually exclusive, so that is why I assess that it is a doomed effort. Beyond that, the whole concept is EASILY defeated by countermeasures (esp delivery vehicles) so it is stupid and a waste of money, and time and won't work. I think it was really only a geopolitical chess piece. It kind of plays out this way. We say we are going to do "something". Someone else gets mad at this and responds with a threatend counter response. Then we eventually cave-in for a consession that we seek. The counterparty may or may not agree to the concession. But if they do, you litterally get something for nothing (a loss of enemy capability in response for no loss in your own EXISTING capability). This is a big chess game just like a certain era that purportedly "ended" a little while ago. As long as you understand that this is the "means to an end" and not the "end" then you have the correct construct for analysing the activities of the involved players. Think bigger, I guess whould be my advice in looking at this matter. (we always want the other guys thinking small, that's how we play to win) "you know that I know that you know that I know" is very instructive. In practice it is not as simple as this it may be more like: "you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that..." We don't want the other guys to know what layer of the onion we are playing at.;)

[sutro]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Russians have been reading up on Cuban Missile Crises Playbook? (swap missiles in Turkey back then for the installation in Poland today)

[Shakespear]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Well it looks like the Russians have pealed their onion and off the bat announced that missiles will be placed in Kalingrad. Many moons ago they were saying that the shield was no big deal.

Their move is certainly tied to meet head on the new administration and its full plate of economic problems.

As to

have civilian control of the military and not the otherway 'round)

So who was controlling the nukes that were not supposed to be up in the air above USA a short time ago? Civilians or the military?

Looks to me like someone is playing dangerous games, not that the other side isn't playing theirs. :-)

[pksubs]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Well it looks like the Russians have pealed their onion and off the bat announced that missiles will be placed in Kalingrad. Many moons ago they were saying that the shield was no big deal.

Their move is certainly tied to meet head on the new administration and its full plate of economic problems.

As to



So who was controlling the nukes that were not supposed to be up in the air above USA a short time ago? Civilians or the military?

Looks to me like someone is playing dangerous games, not that the other side isn't playing theirs. :-)

Hanson, appears to want notoriety as the next Malthus..

Since the topic appears to be geopolitical brinkmanship, not economics in this thread, and the discussion is teeteering on the unintentionally humourous, may I offer my very own half arsed and wanabee humourous solution to the problem:

invest in lotsa solar, then pre-emptively(Go Bush!) nuke the oilfields in the top 5 non nuclear producing nations, hey presto - nothing left to fight about now....

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

So who was controlling the nukes that were not supposed to be up in the air above USA a short time ago? Civilians or the military?

Looks to me like someone is playing dangerous games, not that the other side isn't playing theirs. :-)

Those guys all got fried, EVERYONE got fried. They say that this is not a "one mistake military" but when it comes to nukes, it is very much a one mistake airforce.

One guy failed to do a very important thing, and now everyone on the crew has to do that very important thing (check weapons inventory). In this case he belived the paperwork but failed to viually inspet the warhead.

Dangeroous games indeed, but far better than a shooting war.

[Shakespear]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

I find it curious that even before the new president is IN the Russians start off with a tough line. These boys don't do anything without a script.

Hence Biden's off the cuff remark that Obama will be tested in 6 months may perhaps have something in it and somehow be connected to Russia's rhetoric.