13 ms·
Why does it assume that no bombers would be downed en route? Why does it assume that no missile would be intercepted?
by vntok 4y ago
Why does it assume that no bombers would be downed en route? Why does it assume that no missile would be intercepted?
- pb7 4y agoIt’s a shockingly simplistic simulation to the point that I’m not sure attaching the Princeton brand to it is doing them any favors. I was expecting to learn something new but this is even more basic than I could have guessed knowing nothing.
- practice9 4y ago> It’s a shockingly simplistic simulation to the point that I’m not sure attaching the Princeton brand to it is doing them any favors. Nuclear fearmongering is the new "current thing", so they are hurrying to take advantage of that. But such is the academic world nowadays (more citations = more headlines = more cash for the university and the lab). Mass media is on the same track (bad incentives in action, amplified by internet)
- data_maan 4y agoSo would you say we have nothing to fear?
- mechanical_bear 4y ago2019
- alexvoda 4y agoNot doing favors at all. This lowered my impression of the Princeton brand.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- XorNot 4y agoYeah this stood out to me. That whole area is covered in anti-air defenses for this explicit purpose. Practical experience today show's Soviet-era AA systems downing cruise missiles regularly in Ukraine. There's a bizarre foundational assumption that during the "tactical" phase every weapon committed is successful, and I have no idea why. In fact it's not clear at all to me why there even is a "tactical" stage of the war: the EU powers being obliterated with nuclear weapons would immediately target Moscow for decapitation strikes, they have no reason to hold back.
- incrudible 4y agoDoes it matter if not all tactical weapons are delivered? The point is escalation. There is no meaningful defense against ICBM/MIRVs. Also, you can rest assured that a regime that launched nukes first will not be susceptible to decapitation.