3 ms·

I was in Singapore the day that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. All of Singapore was on high alert and soldiers were everywhere even though it’s half a world awa

I was in Singapore the day that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. All of Singapore was on high alert and soldiers were everywhere even though it’s half a world away. It’s basically a basic level of readiness when something out of the ordinary happens. It shows the world that even if you tried to sneak attack the US with nukes that the US was capable of retaliating. The entire point of Mutually Assured Destruction requires the ability to strike back as part of the defense otherwise attacking first becomes a better solution.

dingaling 6y ago
MAD as a concept faded out in the early 1980s. Improved accuracy led to the policy of counterforce ( against enemy military assets ) instead of countervalue ( cities and social structure ). MAD was a necessary compromise when delivery accuracy and certainty were insufficient to target individual threat sites. It led to enormous megatonne weapons. Whereas modern counterforce involves small-yield warheads placed accurately.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  I was going to say that can't be correct, otherwise some civic-minded third party could swat a global thermonuclear war, saving us all. But https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WarheadInventories1945-2020.png https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WarheadInventorie... agrees, even if it is by warheads and not by megatonnage. So if I'm in a third world country with no foreign bases that has emergency plans for autarky, I'd not be likely to come off too poorly were everything to go elliptical? Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc Edit: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons (which also shows that both the hexagonal "Force de dissuasion" and Airforce One's Tridents are in the noise) > "These weapons have the capacity to kill millions directly and through their impact on agriculture have likely the potential to kill billions." Maybe swatting RU/US wouldn't be so civic minded after all.

dingaling 6y ago

MAD as a concept faded out in the early 1980s. Improved accuracy led to the policy of counterforce ( against enemy military assets ) instead of countervalue ( cities and social structure ). MAD was a necessary compromise when delivery accuracy and certainty were insufficient to target individual threat sites. It led to enormous megatonne weapons. Whereas modern counterforce involves small-yield warheads placed accurately.

082349872349872 6y ago
I was going to say that can't be correct, otherwise some civic-minded third party could swat a global thermonuclear war, saving us all. But https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WarheadInventories1945-2020.png https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WarheadInventorie... agrees, even if it is by warheads and not by megatonnage. So if I'm in a third world country with no foreign bases that has emergency plans for autarky, I'd not be likely to come off too poorly were everything to go elliptical? Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc Edit: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons (which also shows that both the hexagonal "Force de dissuasion" and Airforce One's Tridents are in the noise) > "These weapons have the capacity to kill millions directly and through their impact on agriculture have likely the potential to kill billions." Maybe swatting RU/US wouldn't be so civic minded after all.