Yeah sorry I don’t think any of these are comparable to knowing that as a direct consequence within hours of your decision it is likely that a major city will get hit and that will kill millions instantly. The first one is also false in all but the weakest possible sense of it never being possible to really know whether anything at all including pink elephants bursting out won’t happen before you’ve done something new.
I believe the actual picture also is a lot more bleak when it comes to successful defense. Interceptor success rate is fairly low, time is limited and no major breakthroughs are predicted for future versions. They’re not presented as ever being useful for defending against a near-peer adversary launching a full scale attack.
The first one is also false in all but the weakest possible sense of it
The men responsible for it took it serious:
He had to talk about a matter so important that it was worth taking the train all the way from Los Alamos, New Mexico.
If the Manhattan Project succeeded, might the bomb ignite an uncontrollable fusion chain reaction in the hydrogen of the ocean water or in the nitrogen atoms of the atmosphere?
Compton decided the project should only proceed if calculations gave a less-than three-in-1-million chance that an atomic bomb would vaporize the world. The scientists’ estimate allegedly satisfied that threshold—but there was no way of knowing for sure if the figures were right until the first bomb was detonated
yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”
I’ve seen nothing that suggests USA plans to withstand a nuclear attack from China. I wouldn’t expect them be either because they can’t.
How exactly the capability can be developed when adversaries don’t want you to is certainly something that needs to be thought about. One part of the puzzle is France that has been signaling they are willing to provide a nuclear umbrella for Europe and just announced some partner countries as well as the expansion of their stockpiles.
I of course don’t disagree that conflicts need to be resolved with reason if possible but developing a nuclear deterrence doesn’t exclude doing that.
Or they could just be incompetent when it comes to geopolitics just like they are on so many other issues. There’s a lot that they’re doing that just isn’t defensible rationally. Tariffs, vaccination and medical research, driving away the educated immigrants, energy independence…
But you don’t really mind either.
People have risked more for less.
I don’t know that people have ever risked millions of lives like that as would be the case here.
Nobody knew if the atmosphere would burn when the first bomb was tested.
The US did some maneuvers, including the Cuba crisis, that could have triggered nuclear war.
Global warming puts humanity and nature as we know it at an existential risk.
The housing crisis could have led to the collapse of the world economy which would have risked huge famines.
WW2
Keeping the risks of smoking or soft drinks secret.
Outsourcing pharmaceutical production lines to China.
Yeah sorry I don’t think any of these are comparable to knowing that as a direct consequence within hours of your decision it is likely that a major city will get hit and that will kill millions instantly. The first one is also false in all but the weakest possible sense of it never being possible to really know whether anything at all including pink elephants bursting out won’t happen before you’ve done something new.
I believe the actual picture also is a lot more bleak when it comes to successful defense. Interceptor success rate is fairly low, time is limited and no major breakthroughs are predicted for future versions. They’re not presented as ever being useful for defending against a near-peer adversary launching a full scale attack.
The men responsible for it took it serious:
https://nautil.us/the-day-oppenheimer-feared-he-might-blow-up-the-world-355603
yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”
https://www.inverse.com/science/did-oppenheimer-really-worry-about-setting-the-atmosphere-on-fire
How is the USA going to contain China? The way they behave suggests to me that they plan on withstanding a nuclear attack.
How many reactors does the EU have to breed plutonium?
How many uranium sources do exist that the US cannot convince to sanction the EU?
How many years does it take to create the nukes for a full scale attack?
Nukes are a nice idea but for the coming years they won’t be there to solve any problem. The EU has to focus on resolving the conflicts with reason.
I’ve seen nothing that suggests USA plans to withstand a nuclear attack from China. I wouldn’t expect them be either because they can’t.
How exactly the capability can be developed when adversaries don’t want you to is certainly something that needs to be thought about. One part of the puzzle is France that has been signaling they are willing to provide a nuclear umbrella for Europe and just announced some partner countries as well as the expansion of their stockpiles.
I of course don’t disagree that conflicts need to be resolved with reason if possible but developing a nuclear deterrence doesn’t exclude doing that.
They have given up respecting other countries. Once China has surpassed the USA how will they be able to keep allies?
The US are going to lose their power unless they fight China. Would they fight China if China could erase them?
Or they could just be incompetent when it comes to geopolitics just like they are on so many other issues. There’s a lot that they’re doing that just isn’t defensible rationally. Tariffs, vaccination and medical research, driving away the educated immigrants, energy independence…