4 ms·

So we have nuclear weapons but we can't use them because then our enemies will use theirs and everyone loses. But if cruise missiles (or drones, or anything el

So we have nuclear weapons but we can't use them because then our enemies will use theirs and everyone loses. But if cruise missiles (or drones, or anything else that put explosives on a target) become cheap enough to basically allow you to loiter thousands of weapons over any conflict area, overwhelm any defense, and annihilate all the enemy's material it becomes a similar game of mutual destruction.

cj 2y ago
An analogy could be a light dimmer switch compared to an on/off light switch (nuclear is on/off, while the dimmer can be strategically adjusted without complete mutual destruction)
- siliconc0w 2y ago
  In this world of super cheap standoff weapons, I don't think incrementalism makes sense. It may not even make sense today. In the first few days of conflict with China, we'll basically blow each other up and we'll be back to MAD. Even if we're slightly better and survive with a few ships, I don't think China will be like, "Oh - you used conventional weapons to annihilate our fleet - that's fair, we won't retaliate with nuclear."
  - throwpoaster 2y ago
    Chinese fleet isn’t blue ocean capable. If they break their promise not to use nukes first, that’s on them.
ChumpGPT 2y ago
Russian EW is so far ahead of the US that even Excalibur shells are useless. Most of the missiles the US provides Ukraine have had to be updated constantly. Not saying it doesn't have it's place but it will need to fly without GPS or have some serious anti EW capabilities. They should send it to Ukraine and see how it works out for them. That will be the acid test....
- onepointsixC 2y ago
  Russian EW is not even close to American. Excalibur just uses GPS, just about any EE here could come up with a jammer. Cruise missiles use terrain tracking in addition to other means so they can operate with in a contested environment.

cj 2y ago

An analogy could be a light dimmer switch compared to an on/off light switch (nuclear is on/off, while the dimmer can be strategically adjusted without complete mutual destruction)

siliconc0w 2y ago
In this world of super cheap standoff weapons, I don't think incrementalism makes sense. It may not even make sense today. In the first few days of conflict with China, we'll basically blow each other up and we'll be back to MAD. Even if we're slightly better and survive with a few ships, I don't think China will be like, "Oh - you used conventional weapons to annihilate our fleet - that's fair, we won't retaliate with nuclear."
- throwpoaster 2y ago
  Chinese fleet isn’t blue ocean capable. If they break their promise not to use nukes first, that’s on them.

ChumpGPT 2y ago

Russian EW is so far ahead of the US that even Excalibur shells are useless. Most of the missiles the US provides Ukraine have had to be updated constantly. Not saying it doesn't have it's place but it will need to fly without GPS or have some serious anti EW capabilities. They should send it to Ukraine and see how it works out for them. That will be the acid test....

onepointsixC 2y ago
Russian EW is not even close to American. Excalibur just uses GPS, just about any EE here could come up with a jammer. Cruise missiles use terrain tracking in addition to other means so they can operate with in a contested environment.