3 ms·
The US doesn't conduct a nuclear first strike, not because it fears getting nuked in return, but because it doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy. The presence
by chipsa 4y ago
The US doesn't conduct a nuclear first strike, not because it fears getting nuked in return, but because it doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy. The presence or absence of a missile defense system doesn't change this. Also, there's an entire paragraph on why even an effective system won't change this, so long as it's not perfectly effective (which it can't be), because we still end up with one or more nukes landing in the US, and the acceptable number for that is politically 0.
- w0de0 4y agoThough I agree with you that the US would not do such a thing, such assertions - even if written into state policy - cannot reassure an adversary. The US is, in fact, the only state which has used nuclear weapons in combat - it was the very first strike.
- chipsa 4y agoTrue, but the change in US attitudes towards being willing to conduct a first strike, and/or being willing to lose a city to a nuke, won't come quickly or secretly.
- to11mtm 4y ago> it was the very first strike ... 'very first strike' sounds a bit too loaded in the context of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and WW2 as a whole. It may have been a rash action, perhaps a 'first nuclear strike'. 'very first strike' sounds loaded to the extreme when we consider it was one of the last actions in a multi-year contracted conflict.
- gpderetta 4y agoIf you ever do a first strike, the world the next will changed in such a profound way that would it even matter if you are seeing as the bad guy? Any leftover sense of moral and sanity is probably more likely to be relevant. Tactical use of nukes, as opposed to a strategic first strike, is different of course.