• hotspur [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I still don’t really see how tactical nukes can be a usable thing on the battlefield. There are so many ways that systems or protocols could get tripped which basically then mainline into total nuclear destruction no matter what. I really don’t think there’s such a thing as a limited or small-scale nuclear war—the systems that support it almost guarantee all-out nuclear escalation.

    I’d mostly say ok this is more nuclear Sabre-rattling like they’ve done over and over again. But a small part of me always wonders, if you have powerful, narcissistic old men in control, is there really a guarantee they wouldn’t just say fuck it and end the world? Particularly if they were near death and pissed off? Dunno. hope we never find out.

    • LukácsFan1917
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think NATO would risk it all over a tactical nuke in a non-NATO country, half of the reason they’re risking all this is knowing deep down they wouldn’t be obliged to. The best way to bop them on the nose prior to that would be striking Ukrainian command posts where NATO staff are stationed, and striking US assets in the Middle East/West Asia.

      • hotspur [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah I don’t think NATO would definitely nuke respond intentionally. I just worry that there are a lot of countries with nukes, and a lot of early warning systems of varying degrees of sophistication. If something gets misread, the timeframe in which nuclear decisions are made is tiny by design, you can imagine a scenario where with bad luck, things spiral out of control .

        I realize the tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller, so maybe they’re not as risky as I’m thinking in terms of tripping early warning systems and such.