3 ms·

Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or t

Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or they did. So in that respect, maybe nuclear arms are entirely toothless. Or, think about this. Let's say that China or Russia does launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US. Complete devastation ensured for the US. What's better, then? Also a desolated China or Russia? No. The optimal response would be to holster our own nukes and let at least some of the world continue to preserve the species, right? I mean, in that case we're already dead no matter what. Sure it sucks, but I'd rather take action to ensure the continuity of humanity than exact 'revenge'

ethbro 9y ago
That's you. Thankfully, China or Russia doesn't think people like you will be making the nuclear call. Which is one thing the anti-nuke, give-peace-a-chance crowd has always been absolutely stupid about. The entire idea of nuclear deterrence is predicated on continuously issuing as rabid statements as possible about your willingness to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for any strike (while simultaneously issuing statements that you never intend to use nukes as a first strike). Whether you would or would not actually use them, in the emphasis of Strangelove, it is essential that your potential adversaries have no suspicions that you might not use them. So any statements that don't sound like a madman with his or her finger on the button, just waiting for a chance to nuke the foreigners are actually incredibly dangerous and destabilizing (regardless of actual beliefs).