this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
55 points (84.8% liked)

World News

32363 readers
330 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

See. I don't think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.

I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.

No we're not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.

Or, maybe I'm just misreading it?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I fully expect that the US would start the apocalypse as soon as it was on a back foot in a major conflict.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that any NATO nuclear enabled nation would only act in response to strategic nuclear weapons deployed against a NATO ally. But, I guess we'll only know if/when we get there.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

Given the unhinged behavior of the US historically, and being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I don't see why you'd expect any restraint.