4 ms·
You are assuming the first strike successfully destroyed some fraction of the target's arsenal (without the opponent launching before being hit). I am not sure
by nickff 4y ago
You are assuming the first strike successfully destroyed some fraction of the target's arsenal (without the opponent launching before being hit). I am not sure that nuclear strategists would make that assumption.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoIt would, that's the whole point. That's why we develop ever-more-accurate missiles, and why we quasi-openly advertise their CEP. If you had missiles with lousy accuracy, you'd never consider a counterforce strike. Do as the Chinese did until recently, and target cities and industrial centers. Counterforce targeting is a cheap and effective strategy. OTOH, look at the United States: Trident D-5 is more accurate than the stock MMIII (it's not openly known how MMIII with AIRS from the MX fairs). We can land RVs so accurately that they may as well have conventional warheads. That's destabilizing — but we tend towards the exceedingly rational in our decisions.