Comments
kongartist t1_iycvkho wrote
Still waiting for someone to realize conventional warheads are plenty destructive and that nukes are actually pointless
DIBE25 t1_iycwaro wrote
they require a smaller number of warheads to cripple a city
so.. it's cheaper and easier
gravity bombs are plenty destructive, along with conventional explosives
but nukes almost guarantee you're going to also kill your targets (see: a hypothetical scenario where you need to kill everyone in your enemy's country, or try) unlike gravity bombs or conventional warheads
so it's better from a logistical perspective to use small medium range nukes along with gliders and the like than risk failing by having your planes fail to deliver your bombs
tldr: more kaboom per volume and you can be far away when that happens..
..it's not like you'll live long anyway
edit:
I know MAD is a thing
just wanted to say that nukes are used instead of conventional warheads - the point of MAD is to never get to the tipping point, however close you may get
1BannedAgain t1_iycyoek wrote
Counterpoint: Mutually Assured Destruction
DIBE25 t1_iydviwu wrote
the goal is to never have to reach that
there's that cycle of armament and disarmament of which we've mostly seen one high and one starting low and another low now
this is to say and I hope it makes sense
it's to supposedly be good at something you hope you'll never have to do because it's a damn good way of signing your own death certificate
tldr: be good destroying your enemy in theory and hope it works out
that's MAD explained in a really bad way
kongartist t1_iycxl9z wrote
Yes but then all that territory is useless to you, completely irradiated for decades. Plus all of the other long term climate effects. Just stupid on many levels.
NaCly_Asian t1_iyd9r6h wrote
not really. the use of nukes wouldn't be to win a war. it will be to make sure the enemy loses. I'm sure if your nukes wipes out 98+% of the enemy civilian population, the enemy military will probably start questioning whether it was worth the fight.
Electronic_Impact t1_iycz2li wrote
why? they all have enough warheads to destroy the planet, put that money towards saving the enviroment.
axi98 t1_iyd6xtn wrote
Is it better to be loved or feared ?
AdministrationOk5761 t1_iydk688 wrote
It's been a while since I last read the prince, but I'm pretty sure the answer was feared.
Robbotlove t1_iyd4uo3 wrote
why save the environment when you can threaten to destroy it?
gaukonigshofen t1_iyd3tza wrote
well then the west should counter that number /s
desperate4compost t1_iyeacez wrote
The CCP are oppressive authoritarian jizz rags, but there is some semblance of sanity amongst the leadership. MAD will at least be some deterrent for them.
Putin would gleefully burn the world to ash if he doesn’t get his way. Psychopaths are like that.
Guntcher1423 t1_iyek0ut wrote
So? It isn't like there are not enough to kill everyone right now.
No-Community-7210 t1_iyd5hq9 wrote
> This fear mongering brought to you by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman
1BannedAgain t1_iycyjv9 wrote
State sovereignty. See yourself out
jaybazzizzle t1_iycxe8c wrote
It doesnt matter if it's 1,500 or 15 billion. The end result is still the same: Mutually assured destruction