4 ms·
You assume the US undertaking a first strike is more likely than some kind of retaliation for some perceived slight by some other nuclear power, like Russia or
by snagglegaggle 7y ago
You assume the US undertaking a first strike is more likely than some kind of retaliation for some perceived slight by some other nuclear power, like Russia or China? That's... strange.
Historically those forgoing weapons were subjugated. If you want to be nonviolent to a fault, fine, but leave me out of it.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoTFA is saying that the USA is optimising its nuclear arsenal for a surprise first strike capability. Surprise first strikes work best if unexpected. So encouraging the President to throw a hissy fit and press the button is the best strategy if you're a nuclear general with rockets to launch. First strikes aren't retaliation. This is not escalation of a conventional conflict. This is out-of-the-blue, kill the other guy's ability to hit you. Think Pearl Harbour but with nukes. If "having a fight" means we both die, then non-violence is the only answer. A nuclear war has no "winners". Being "subjugated" or "not-subjugated" is the same: generations of radioactive hell. Losing a conventional war is better than winning a nuclear war. So yes, non-violence please.