News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by pdonis on Monday November 05, 2018 @11:15PM (#18388319)
> Why do you need conventional forces in a nuclear world?

Because you don't want your only options for dealing with other countries to be "do nothing" and "start a nuclear war".

Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by eloff on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @01:51AM (#18388942)
What's wrong with do nothing? What business is of the US what happens in the rest of the world? I mean as much as people criticize the role they played, I think the world is better off for it. But it's a thankless job. Turning inward and leaving the world to go as it will is a valid strategy. Perhaps even the best one for the US. Nukes are good enough for self defense.
Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by mijamo on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @03:52AM (#18389384)
All the US intervention are based on pure self interest, nothing to do with policing the world. If anything most of the world would have been better off without US interventions, particularly latin america and middle east!

Now let's say you don't have conventional weapons.

China invades all South East Asia progressively. Would you nuke them? Russia invades Eastern Europe. Would you nuke them? If yes why hasn't the US nuked Russia yet?

Then all your allies suddenly switch side after being overthrown by dictators who are in favor of your enemies. Would you nuke them?

Another one: you are terrorists associations preparing attacks against you in camps all across middle east. Who do you nuke to defend yourself?

Conventional weapons are actually the only useful tools nowadays, because war is much more sneaky than it used to be, and it is much more about fighting for influence than really invading countries or defending you territory.

Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by eloff on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @05:32AM (#18389805)
Basically no to all of the above. One can question the wisdom of not standing up to aggressive nation states attacking and conquering other states - and doing nothing. Let's say the US had invented the bomb earlier and was using this strategy during the rise of Nazi Germany. Basically the plan would be to leave Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy unchecked as they conquered state after state until the whole rest of the world fell under horrifying authoritarian rule. Until one eventually comes for the US and both commit suicide. It seems a much worse scenario than the already horrifying one we had.

On the other hand let's say all had the bomb but are reluctant to use it. The nation's fight it out with conventional weaponry until the axis powers, realizing they have lost and with invasion in progress finally feel they have no other choice and commit mutually assured destruction. I think it would be hard to claim that wouldn't have happened given the temperament of some of their leaders. Perhaps in this case the allies would have showed restraint and not invaded to end the war - perhaps they would have been willing to negotiate terms.

I think basically my idea is a terrible one. But I also think the world war II scenario would end in nuclear exchange - the only way to avoid that is not push any power to the point of last resort, and negotiate an unsatisfying agreement that leaves the aggressors in power, no matter what horrible things they do. Would all have shown such restraint, would cooler heads have prevailed amid the terrible atrocities of total war? I'm not particularly optimistic of the chances.

Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by hulahoof on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @02:04AM (#18388983)
Would you fire the nukes if a non-mainland territory like Guam or Puerto Rico was invaded?

What if the invaders are non-nuclear armed?

There is a wide range of responses between nothing and total nuclear annihilation, even without world police status.

Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by eloff on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @05:09AM (#18389707)
Those cases are refreshingly black and white. Yes and yes.

You deliver an ultimatum, wait for the invader to withdraw. If they call your bluff, you level them. Just a city at a time if they don't have nukes. Wholly if they do. I mean if your going to rely on a nuclear self defense, when someone attacks you, you have to be willing to use it.

Re:A faster, cheaper path to fusion energy by pdonis on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @11:28PM (#18397079)
> What's wrong with do nothing?

Sometimes doing nothing is the best response. I didn't say it never was. I just said you don't want that or nuclear war to be your only options.

> What business is of the US what happens in the rest of the world?

Do you use anything not made in the US? If you do, then you care what happens in the rest of the world. Even if you personally don't, enough other people in the US do that you need to care what happens in the rest of the world, because you depend on those other people in the US and they use things from the rest of the world. The world is highly interconnected.