Japanese military - how strong should it be?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.

You're missing the point.

Whether the US has 1,000 nuclear missiles or 10,000 nuclear missiles, it could still dispose of 99% of them and preserve its self-described "security objectives."

Originally posted by wittywonka
You're missing the point.

Whether the US has 1,000 nuclear missiles or 10,000 nuclear missiles, it could still dispose of 99% of them and preserve its self-described "security objectives."

How do you figure ?!

Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.

Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?

Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
How do you figure ?!

Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.

Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?

Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?

By that logic, every other country in the world can only be "secure" if they build as many nuclear weapons as the US presently has.

Originally posted by normbenign
Each nation ought to keep whatever military force required for their own security, based on their own judgement.

Japan, only a short distance from a long time declared enemy is in an unenviable position.

Nations defeated after waging aggressive, ruthless war don't get to make that judgment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By that logic, every other country in the world can only be "secure" if they build as many nuclear weapons as the US presently has.

Exactly ! But we won't let that happen and should not.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
How do you figure ?!

Lets do your scenario.
Hypothetically,The U.S. has 1000 nukes. They drop 99% of them as you say, leaving them 10 nukes.

Where are they deployed to preserve their "self-described security objectives."? Europe ? U.S. home land ? East coast ? West coast ? Where ?

Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on the mother load. How does that keep us secure ?

I don't envision the United States needing to wipe any entire countries off the map any time soon. And if we did need to, we'd have bigger concerns by that point, anyway.

Positioning of those 10 hypothetical nuclear weapons seems irrelevant to me, anyway, considering the intercontinental range of modern warfare.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I don't envision the United States needing to wipe any entire countries off the map any time soon. And if we did need to, we'd have bigger concerns by that point, anyway.

Positioning of those 10 hypothetical nuclear weapons seems irrelevant to me, anyway, considering the intercontinental range of modern warfare.

I know its irrelevant to you. That much is obvious.

I would never envision the U.S. wiping anyone off the map as you say, but it is a silly notion to think many others do not want us gone and have all of our resources.
There are still very real threats out there. From actual foreign nations. Not just little bands of of camel jockey terrorist.

The ONLY reason the citizens of the U.S. and its allies are safe and secure since WW2 is because the U.S. has an extreme deterrent. Its military might. Which includes the nuke option.

Read up on the Cuban missile crisis for example. What the Russians had planned for us. To you its probably "ancient history". Some obscure thing you have read about. Not me. I was there I lived through it. And I am surely far from ancient. LOL.

Russia and China either directly or indirectly through their proxy's are still very real threats to the U.S. It is foolish to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I know its irrelevant to you. That much is obvious.

I would never envision the U.S. wiping anyone off the map as you say, but it is a silly notion to think many others do not want us gone and have all of our resources.
There are still very real threats out there. From actual foreign nations. Not just little bands of of camel jockey terrorist.
...[text shortened]... gh their proxy's are still very real threats to the U.S. It is foolish to believe otherwise.

A nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. The United States only needs enough firepower to prevent the first nuclear attack against it.

Besides, it's not like those "camel jockey terrorists" care about our nuclear stockpiles (except with regards to how they might somehow use one of our own missiles against us)--it's not like 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we had had 50,000 nuclear weapons instead of 5,000.

Seems to be common sense that a military strategy that was supposedly designed to stop the soviet union from expanding would be pretty useless in today's era of terrorism and small scale conventional conflicts.

Also if you are judging a nato members stockpile of nukes you should count nato's stockpile of nukes.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Seems to be common sense that a military strategy that was supposedly designed to stop the soviet union from expanding would be pretty useless in today's era of terrorism and small scale conventional conflicts.

Also if you are judging a nato members stockpile of nukes you should count nato's stockpile of nukes.

The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces and a few tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces a ...[text shortened]... w tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.

It's actually the other way around; the Soviet (now Russian) arsenal was developed to prevent the US from waging a first strike. The US has always had a superiority in strategic nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's actually the other way around; the Soviet (now Russian) arsenal was developed to prevent the US from waging a first strike. The US has always had a superiority in strategic nuclear weapons.

It goes both ways. Mutually Assured Destruction. But in the old days we didn't have enough weapons to wipe out the planet.

It's worth noting that - from the Soviet/Russian WWII-centric perspective - NATO is an alliance of Germany, Great Britain, the USA, and which is very friendly to and closely associated with Japan.

Four out of the 5 great powers of WWII allied vs the fifth - Russia.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The United States' nuclear arsenal is to provide a deterrant to the massive Soviet-Russian nuclear arsenal to prevent us from being wiped out in a pre-emptive nuclear strike (followed by Captain Trips - full on global thermonuclear war, where guys in M-1 Abrams tanks die if they leave the vehicle from radiation and plagues). Our conventional forces a ...[text shortened]... w tactical nukes were to prevent the Soviets from expanding. The Russian arsenal still exists.

Do you think the United States needs thousands of nuclear weapons to accomplish as much today?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Do you think the United States needs thousands of nuclear weapons to accomplish as much today?

I don't know. Whatever we've been doing seems to work. I trust our military and political experts.