• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    5000 nukes is already enough to end civilization, what the fuck would having even more be worth?

    • pingveno
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      With MAD, the idea is to be in the position that any adversary knows that if they attack you, they will be utterly annihilated. There should be no scenario under which an adversary sees a nuclear attack as advantageous. The US has aging systems and both China and Russia have been developing new capabilities. Numbers alone may not keep up, especially if a large number of missiles are disabled via nukes or other means.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        5000 nukes will annihilate everyone. Earth wouldn’t recover for centuries.

        Now, yes, delivery systems determine if the nukes can actually be used, but having more than 5000 nukes is just a hat on a hat. As long as they’re 5000 functional nukes there’s just no reason to have more.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Unless the enemy can intercept the missiles, then you need more to guarantee first strike capability.

          If you need 500 nukes to hit and the enemy can destroy 90% of missiles then you build 5000+

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Again, that’s more about delivery systems than just having more nukes. The capacity to intercept comes down to how fast and stealthy the missiles are.

        • pingveno
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Again, it’s not a matter of numbers. It’s a matter of maintaining a credible MAD threat so that any adversaries does not see nuclear war as a viable option. Nuclear weapons are meant to be brandished credibly as a response, not used.

        • pingveno
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, there are other parts to MAD. Things like keeping mil to mil communication open at all times, especially times of increased hostility, to avoid escalations. But in the end, it is insuring that the nuclear game is set such that it is never in anyone’s best interest to set off nuclear weapons.