3 ms·
His primary example of justification of low yield nukes is bunker busting. But the US already has conventional bunker busting weapons that can either breach or
by merpnderp 7y ago
His primary example of justification of low yield nukes is bunker busting. But the US already has conventional bunker busting weapons that can either breach or effectively bury forever any bunker the US would want to bust. Without that example, his question becomes a whole lot more hypothetical and less important for modern policy decisions.
- AcerbicZero 7y agoThe more recent nuclear accidents with power production, such as at Fukushima highlighted how reactionary (perhaps correctly) a large portion of people are in regards to radiation/nuclear events. I have serious doubts there are many plausible situations in which a US president would authorize even an extremely low yield nuclear strike, considering the domestic and international backlash, and the optics of it in general. If you want to be extra cynical about it, it would seem that the military industrial complex stands to make much more money off of continuous low intensity conflict, where they can develop advanced conventional weapons, bill the US government for the R&D, and then sell watered down versions to ~1/4th of the world. Nuclear weapons are just a little too good at their job, making them bad for business.