3 ms·

This author is just trying to lobby for buying/selling weapon. I don't see why we should give this article any eyeballs. Also, the best deterrent is not a good

This author is just trying to lobby for buying/selling weapon. I don't see why we should give this article any eyeballs. Also, the best deterrent is not a good defense system that this guy is trying to sell. It's the threat of 100 nukes erasing 50 cities of the invading country. That threat is real, and that's the US best defense at the moment.

int0x2e 5y ago
That sort of reasoning (MAD) works great against Russia during the cold war. It is less robust once you factor in rogue and non-rational adversaries. I'm no saying you're wrong, but the risk from these actors isn't truly mitigated even by having overwhelming conventional and non-conventional weapons, second-strike capabilities (or anything really_.