3 ms·
Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of t
by naravara 7y ago
Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of the type you're talking about. The idea being that even if you can do more destruction with conventional weapons, anchoring some emotional weight around nukes maintains momentum behind nuclear disarmament and discourages nuclear armed nations from going to war with each other.
[1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286
- DanielBMarkham 7y agoYeah, there's a lot more to this topic. I had to drastically simplify in order to make it into a reasonable-sized HN comment. What we're seeing is a breakdown of the bipolar world. At the same time, we're seeing the potential for massive destruction from a number of new attack vectors, and smaller and smaller actors are capable of wielding them. And warfare itself has changed from army-on-army to desultory, infinitely-lived affairs many times done using proxies and fake information. That changes a lot. The _message_ of using tactical nukes may very well be more important to control than the actual use of them.