3 ms·
> Hate ‘em or hate ‘em, nukes are a deterrent to open war. This is demonstrably false. Nukes have allowed those who have them, to bully (wage asymmetric warfa
by boffinAudio 3y ago
> Hate ‘em or hate ‘em, nukes are a deterrent to open war.
This is demonstrably false. Nukes have allowed those who have them, to bully (wage asymmetric warfare on) those who don't.
Would the USA have been so cock-sure about murdering 5% of Iraqs population, if it didn't have nukes?
- cameron_b 3y agoUnfortunately that is an illustration of what I mean. Iraq and Ukraine participated in nuclear disarmament and monitoring. Iran has continued to pursue nuclear development and gets very diplomatic kid-gloves from even US military retaliation on Iran-backed groups in the area. The US was very clear in not attacking Iranians, though Iranian support was the vehicle by which US troops were attacked. Iran got a measured response for its allies because Iran 'carries a big stick'
- samus 3y agoHow would the US not having nukes helped Irak? Conventional invasion of the US is impossible unless the the attacker has total sea superiority or a strong forward base in the Americas. The US can and will maintain its dominance there with conventional means. Air or missile strikes against US territory are very difficult to pull off. Only China or Russia would have any chance to overwhelm US missile defenses. Anything small-scale would be answered by conventional strikes and a ground invasion. No nukes are warranted unless entire cities get slagged or nukes or biological or chemical weapons are used.