3 ms·
> I don't think there's any scenario justifying that arsenal. The scenario isn't based on a need to drop 25 nukes on every other country on earth but to be ab
by skinkestek 6y ago
> I don't think there's any scenario justifying that arsenal.
The scenario isn't based on a need to drop 25 nukes on every other country on earth but to be able to get back at anyone even in the case of a massive unwarned pre-emptive strike.
Same on the Russian side, they probably still also have many more warheads than they need to obliterate any chosen enemy.
Also, these systems takes decades to build, I don't think Putin and his leadership was/is particularly afraid of Bush, Obama or Trump planning a massive pre-emptive strike - or vice versa - these systems are probably in place because of presidents long dead and the risk of future presidents who still aren't more than bullies in elementary school.
- Retric 6y agoPre-emptive Nuclear strikes are shockingly ineffective vs a country the size of the US with Nuclear submarines. The fastest strike from a sub on each of the coasts gives plenty of time for Nukes in strategic locations to be detected and a strike to be launched. If it was needed, you can also design a bunker to survive a direct strike and launch after the fact. Though subs in the Great Lakes would be most cost effective option for the US.