4 ms·
Sure, but isn't the problem "second strike": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike With nukes, you gotta stop
by lbotos 5y ago
Sure, but isn't the problem "second strike": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike
With nukes, you gotta stop your nuclear armed opponent from killing you second, first.
- sdoering 5y agoWith nuclear weapons you know that getting all enemy weapons is a slim chance. So you aim for maximum destruction of the enemy. If I had to decide on targets I would go for max destruction in terms of lives. In the initial impact and in the long term. So the biggest cities, nuclear power plants, water supply, food production. As said when usi g this option I don't expect my people to survive as well.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hutrdvnj 5y agoWell if you go for maximum number of lives instead of nukes, then the nuclear answer to russia will likely be so strong that it really doesn't matter.