6 ms·
IIRC, it's a legacy of the cold war. The game theory strategists realised that any use of nuclear weapons would either escalate, or end up in a massive defeat.
by wisty 11y ago
IIRC, it's a legacy of the cold war.
The game theory strategists realised that any use of nuclear weapons would either escalate, or end up in a massive defeat. You can start with a tactical nuke wiping out troops, it will escalate to larger nukes wiping out ships, and eventually you're dropping very large nukes on population centers.
Mutually Assured Destruction was the only solution. (Or peace, but let's be realistic).
The Russians may have gotten away with MAD, without any need for propaganda, but the US is a democracy. To convince the population that MAD was acceptable, they had to create a situation in which any use of nuclear weapons such a horrible crime that it warranted the complete obliteration of the country that dealt the first blow.
In order to make nuclear war (even limited, tactical use) a horrible crime, they made a very big deal out of the effects. (Yes, it's not nice to wipe out battleships and troop formations, but not unprecedented in a war). Which meant they emphasised how bad radiation and fallout can be.
Also, radiation is just naturally a bit spooky, as are many carcinogens (especially ones you don't choose to expose yourself to). The fact that they might kill you 30 years after the event doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
- etangent 11y agoI am pro-nuclear, but the above comment is incredibly, maddeningly stupid. It's so amazingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. The hidden assumption that there was an actual alternative to MAD? That the USG used radiation fear-mongering to shove MAD down our throats? That the USSR didn't use propaganda? That radiation isn't a big deal? That radiation only stays around for 30 years (a common mistake is to assume that half-life, which can indeed be something like 30years, equals how long radioisotopes will stay in the environment, which is completely bollocks)? The most horrible thing about that comment is that it was written by someone intelligent enough to compose a sentence, yet stupid enough to reach to the conclusions she did.
- benihana 11y agoBe civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html