3 ms·
> it seems like the best move would be to have far fewer nukes than everybody thinks you do. I don't believe that this is possible if even one nation has a mod
by NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> it seems like the best move would be to have far fewer nukes than everybody thinks you do.
I don't believe that this is possible if even one nation has a moderately competent intelligence agency. They may not have all the details, but if they have any economic data at all, their analysts can likely napkin-math to within 10% of the actual number. Any actual espionage would just further refine it.
Hell, that's why there's fluoride in the drinking water... just so some Soviet spy couldn't figure out how many we had from fluoride numbers alone.
- laszlokorte 3y agoDo you have a source at hand for the flouride in drinking water being linked to atomic weapons?
- vGPU 3y agoIt was actually. Lawsuits were filed against the DuPont factory. The link is a bit of a “doomer/conspiracy” site I think but the information is accurate. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/fluoride_toothpaste_and_the_a-bomb/ https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoFigured it out on my own a few years back. Only answer that makes sense. It's used for very few things, and the output of those is published annually. If we're using more fluoride than that, the difference tells you annual (uranium, of course) bomb production. From there, the propaganda took off, any counter-narrative is conspiracy theory, and we now believe our own lies. Hell, the funny thing is I think almost all our current arsenal is plutonium... how long could uranium have even mattered? Not past the 1960s.