4 ms·
By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.
by andrepd 9mo ago
By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- actionfromafar 9mo agoI am glad you didn’t run the Cold War. Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.
- Sabinus 9mo agoCan I have your house if I threaten to nuke you? Assume I have a nuke. How about your wife? If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it. Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.