4 ms·
For an article with such high production value, they seem to have forgotten fifty percent of the discussion: the risks of not having the missiles on our land.
by causi 3y ago
For an article with such high production value, they seem to have forgotten fifty percent of the discussion: the risks of not having the missiles on our land.
- waynecochran 3y agoStrangely having nukes have kept us out of full scale war.
- ricardobeat 3y agoThis knee-jerk reaction to the subject doesn’t add much to the discussion. This is the result of a study aimed specifically at analyzing the safety of those nuclear installations. An argument with substance for an opposing point of view would be a lot more welcome than a cheap jab.
- jiriro 3y agoNot at all knee-jerk nor cheap job. The article does not address the option of not having those missiles. And this “not addressing” seems highly deliberate.
- ricardobeat 3y agoIf I do a piece on river pollution being caused by a steel plant, do I have to "address" the scenario where the plant doesn't exist to be "balanced"?
- causi 3y agoSteel plants polluting nearby rivers is an optional aspect of steel plants. Potentially being hit by attacks is not an optional part of having nuclear weapons.
- sobellian 3y agoDo you want GP to use more words to say the same thing? He's right. Just to pick out their leading argument, they simulate a nuclear attack on the silos. AFAICT they do not simulate alternative nuclear war scenarios where the silos do not exist. That seems like an important omission.
- benterix 3y agoWhat do you mean by "an argument with substance"? The reason to have nuclear silos is to have them act as a nuclear sponge. Make them conspicuous, well-known, that's the whole point. We don't have nukes to attack other but to deter wars and minimize casualties should someone be stupid enough to attack a nuclear superpower.
- enterprise_cog 3y agoThat idea is absurd. No matter how big your “sponge”, all it takes is a few dozen to land on major cities for the US and its economy to be devastated.
- benterix 3y agoThe idea of a nuclear war is absurd. But should someone be stupid enough to start it, any means of reducing damage and minimizing casualties are good.