4 ms·

The world would be much better off if the only nuclear weapons were ICBMs based in the heart of the country that would be launching them. There would be no ambi

The world would be much better off if the only nuclear weapons were ICBMs based in the heart of the country that would be launching them. There would be no ambiguity on who has attacked when everyone can see where the missile came from. Does the US really need a nuclear cruise missile now that they are not needed to destroy Soviet tank battalions invading Europe? Nuclear powers ought to try really hard not to be shooting at each other and have clear Schelling points not to cross so that nuclear exchange does not happen by a series of small scale escalations. More people who can launch nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

nabla9 9y ago
US provides nuclear umbrella to several allies. To maintain credible nuclear deterrence escalation ladders are needed. It's not credible to assume that US would be willing to lose millions of citizens in major US metropolitan areas to revenge Warsaw or Tokyo in nuclear tit-for-tat. NATO has nuclear sharing arrangement to maintain steps in the nuclear escalation ladder (B61 bombs dropped by aircraft operated by host country). Nuclear Tomahawks were used in 80's to provide similar nuclear umbrella to Japan. US was never willing to launch ICBM's from US soil to defend Japan. Any response would have been from Tomahawks launched from US subs, aircraft os surface vessels close to Japan. When US retired Nuclear Tomahawks there were long discussions with Japanese on how to maintain the deterrence. There is no ideological competition anymore. As a result the probability of regional nuclear conflict has increased not decreased. Shelling points would become unclear if US would only have ICBM's.
- njarboe 9y ago
  I would agree with you on the current situation. It would be nice if the US did not have to nuke anyone if Japan or Germany were invaded. WWII ended a long time ago and almost everyone who fought in that war is dead. Maybe the occupation should end also. I guess my post was part of a bigger idea about reducing the need for US overseas occupation of the Axis powers and its huge military industrial complex. Most countries could have a small number of nuclear ICBMs, well defended but transparently held. A little shooting among neighbors would still happen like with China, India, and Pakistan today, but such a setup might reduce the probability of a large nuclear exchange causing a nuclear winter while still preventing the horrible conventional world wars that seem to happen when nuclear weapons don't exist. It would be nice if nuclear weapons could move to a tit-for-tat posture instead of MAD. I think the tail risk for a MAD strategy is highly underestimated by almost everyone.

nabla9 9y ago

US provides nuclear umbrella to several allies. To maintain credible nuclear deterrence escalation ladders are needed. It's not credible to assume that US would be willing to lose millions of citizens in major US metropolitan areas to revenge Warsaw or Tokyo in nuclear tit-for-tat. NATO has nuclear sharing arrangement to maintain steps in the nuclear escalation ladder (B61 bombs dropped by aircraft operated by host country). Nuclear Tomahawks were used in 80's to provide similar nuclear umbrella to Japan. US was never willing to launch ICBM's from US soil to defend Japan. Any response would have been from Tomahawks launched from US subs, aircraft os surface vessels close to Japan. When US retired Nuclear Tomahawks there were long discussions with Japanese on how to maintain the deterrence. There is no ideological competition anymore. As a result the probability of regional nuclear conflict has increased not decreased. Shelling points would become unclear if US would only have ICBM's.

njarboe 9y ago
I would agree with you on the current situation. It would be nice if the US did not have to nuke anyone if Japan or Germany were invaded. WWII ended a long time ago and almost everyone who fought in that war is dead. Maybe the occupation should end also. I guess my post was part of a bigger idea about reducing the need for US overseas occupation of the Axis powers and its huge military industrial complex. Most countries could have a small number of nuclear ICBMs, well defended but transparently held. A little shooting among neighbors would still happen like with China, India, and Pakistan today, but such a setup might reduce the probability of a large nuclear exchange causing a nuclear winter while still preventing the horrible conventional world wars that seem to happen when nuclear weapons don't exist. It would be nice if nuclear weapons could move to a tit-for-tat posture instead of MAD. I think the tail risk for a MAD strategy is highly underestimated by almost everyone.