4 ms·
What's the point of being "ahead of china" in terms of war? Isn't one of the great benefits of MAD that it provides an upper bound on needed destructive capabil
by kazagistar 8y ago
What's the point of being "ahead of china" in terms of war? Isn't one of the great benefits of MAD that it provides an upper bound on needed destructive capabilities, beyond which you are just wasting time?
- dx87 8y agoThe point in being ahead of China is that MAD is the upper bound, but there is still a lot of destructive room to grow between current capabilities and nuclear apocalypse. If a country has nukes but a weak conventional military then you can be sure that the world will do everything it can to control your nukes, and even then the weaker country knows that if it uses nukes, it'll be wiped off the Earth in retaliation. A good example country is North Korea; they have nuclear weapons, but there conventional military is so weak compared to their neighbors that the only thing nukes get them is food aid.
- scottLobster 8y agoThere's also the matter of limited warfare and not being able to use nukes for every defensive purpose. A nukes-only approach to national security means that you nuke over the slightest provocation, which will earn you short-term victory at the cost of international condemnation and likely intervention. No one likes a nuclear powder keg. For a practical example, let's say we never bothered to invest in point defense for our destroyers and they were completely vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. One day China sinks a destroyer as a show of force. Should we nuke Beijing? Or would it be better to have a strong Navy/Air force in place to respond conventionally by taking out the missile launchers?