3 ms·
> What we do know for a fact is that it's atleast very risky and irrational at best to risk handing over a single let alone eight zero days to a adversary you d
by blix 7y ago
> What we do know for a fact is that it's atleast very risky and irrational at best to risk handing over a single let alone eight zero days to a adversary you deem to be bonkers enough to go nuclear since the reluctance to apply them is significantly lower compared to conventional or nbc weapons.
Only two nuclear weapons have been deployed ever. This single 8 zero day attack already quadruples it. There is absolutely more relectance for nuclear. the "n" is not like the "bc" in nbc.
Delaying Iran's enrichment program and preventing nuclear war are very similar goals. A near-nuclear Iran would likely foment a war in the region, involving at least one other nuclear capable state. Preventing Iran from obtaining weapons is a tactic to prevent the possibility of nuclear exchange in the region. I don't think the distinction you are drawing is valid.
- JadeNB 7y ago> Only two nuclear weapons have been deployed ever. … intentionally; if you want to feel a stark sense of wonder that we ever survived the height of the nuclear-weapons age, you could do worse than to read Schlosser's "Command and Control" (https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/1594202273 https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...).
- blix 7y agoOh yeah, it's miracle the USA didn't accidentally nuke itself. There are a lot of scary stories out there. However, I dont think that necessarily means nukes are taken less seriously than zero-days.
- JadeNB 7y ago> However, I dont think that necessarily means nukes are taken less seriously than zero-days. Sure, I didn't mean to argue that; only to point out that saying that only two nuclear weapons had been deployed, even if true in a perfectly reasonable sense, required at least some qualification.