4 ms·
> the whole point is to maintain an imbalance of power and capability in one’s own favor That’s one strategy. Another, once the nuclear cat is out of the bag,
by derstander 5y ago
> the whole point is to maintain an imbalance of power and capability in one’s own favor
That’s one strategy. Another, once the nuclear cat is out of the bag, is mutual assured destruction (MAD). If that’s your strategy then it is hypocritical because then the point is that everyone has enough power to destroy everyone else so no one will make a move.
I personally think that both strategies are stupid. The former will just breed current and future resentment and the latter is vulnerable to one unstable person with authority to use the weapons.
But I don’t have any sort of alternative so it seems like preventing others from getting nukes and then falling back to MAD is just the way the world is working.
- sidlls 5y agoMAD is about having sufficient alliance networks with enough power to guarantee mutual destruction, not having everyone with lots of nukes. And usually “alliance networks” meant the old US/Soviet divide.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe whole point of nukes is that any given nation can take responsibility for its own defense and is not dependent on allies who may throw them under the bus if it is useful to do so. Alliance networks are what gave us WW1.