2 ms·
> Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point. Not necessarily, after a certain point MAD comes to play
by sofixa 5y ago
> Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point.
Not necessarily, after a certain point MAD comes to play ( assuming rational actors, which Putin is not).
- goodpoint 5y ago> after a certain point MAD comes to play That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. Easily disproven by current events. > assuming rational actors, which Putin is not Hence the criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri... Unsurprising the Doomsday Clock is showing increased threat level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline
- adventured 5y ago> That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. ... Easily disproven by current events. It's clearly not obsolete nor disproven by current events at all. The conflict would have to involve two nuclear powers at war with eachother. The US and Russia are not at war; NATO and Russia are not at war; MAD hasn't failed what-so-ever, nor has it even come to that context. The situation is presently one nuclear power vs a non-nuclear power (being supplied with weapons by foreign allies). The present events don't disprove the effectiveness of MAD any more than Russia in Afghanistan did.