4 ms·
Bullshit. They’ve been demonstrated. Repeatedly, and publicly. That’s the whole point of having them. Also, there is no difference between a tactical and strat
by jonathankoren 3y ago
Bullshit. They’ve been demonstrated. Repeatedly, and publicly. That’s the whole point of having them.
Also, there is no difference between a tactical and strategic nuke from an escalatory perspective. Once the genie is out, it’s out.
- wnkrshm 3y agoThere are people who argue that there are ways to keep limited nuclear warfare limited. [0] I think the RAND institute also published some study on it not outright rejecting the idea but I can't find it atm. [0] https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21511 https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21511
- grotorea 3y agoIn that case, why both sides of the Cold War spent fortunes on conventional forces along the Iron Curtain? Like yes it is playing with (nuclear) fire, and maybe they were wrong, but there plenty of professionals who, maybe biased by their positions, who felt the need to get ready for limited nuclear war. And I'm not really convinced either side would want to risk destroying human civilization over Frankfurt. > Also, there is no difference between a tactical and strategic nuke from an escalatory perspective. Once the genie is out, it’s out. I mean, why? Why shouldn't tactical and strategic be separate steps on the ladder?
- alexnewman 3y agoThat’s what I thought as well but his articles address those concerns. Very good read if you didn’t read them