3 ms·
That would certainly be reasonable and I hope it's accurate. I'm a little worried though that we're spending a lot of money to make more accurate warheads, whic
by DennisP 6y ago
That would certainly be reasonable and I hope it's accurate. I'm a little worried though that we're spending a lot of money to make more accurate warheads, which are more useful for first strikes against silos, and arguably less useful for deterrence since the resulting "use them or lose them" dynamic is destabilizing.
One improvement we definitely have now is a more flexible strategy. Back in the late '50s and for a while after, they had a detailed plan to keep planes from flying too near each other's mushroom clouds, and since they didn't have decent computers it took a huge amount of work to do all the calculations. The thought of doing it more than once filled nuclear planners with horror, so they just kept to a single plan, which was to launch everything against all targets, regardless of the situation.
- mjevans 6y agoWe need to survive to 'phasers and photon torpedoes' somehow. Retaining the skills and active devices to use against inbound rocks and balls of ice in intersecting orbits is the silver lining to these military policies.