4 ms·
Got it, thanks for explaining so clearly. The way I see it, because of nuclear weapons, no other country can actually conquer the US, so I much prefer free spee
by axguscbklp 5y ago
Got it, thanks for explaining so clearly. The way I see it, because of nuclear weapons, no other country can actually conquer the US, so I much prefer free speech to any sort of propaganda initiatives meant to strengthen the US against other countries. We are already basically almost completely protected from other countries by our nuclear weapons. We do not need censorship and propaganda to add any sort of meaningful further protection.
- baybal2 5y ago> We are already basically almost completely protected from other countries by our nuclear weapons. US nuclear weapon stockpile will only be enough to neutralise just one military superpower. A country with resources, and economy to survive the first strike, can realistically rebuild, and come back with vengeance. I always retold my own variation on the Einstein's quote on WW3 as "WW3 will be started with nuclear weapons, but will be ended with trench warfare"
- beerandt 5y ago>US nuclear weapon stockpile will only be enough to neutralise just one military superpower Well that's not true. And it's especially not true with the new ICBM fuses and bomber launched stand-off missiles. The newly equipped icbms are an approx. 3x multiplier compared to having the same number of weapons a decade ago. Which frees up weapons to be shifted either to new targets, or from strategic use to potential tactical use, with the new lower adjustable yields. So even WW3 trench warfare has a good chance of still being nuclear warfare.