• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    7223 days ago

    Already have more nukes than every other country, this is literally pointless. After a certain point having more nukes just becomes a hat on a hat.

    • @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2723 days ago

      Oh there is a point. Hint: Who does the US Government pay to maintain/create it’s nuclear arsenal?

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        26
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        Private contractors probably, it’s all a big bonanza for a few rich people to get richer I’m sure. Just paying for more hats on hats.

        But never underestimate how dog brained these people are, they probably actually believe this makes us more secure lol

    • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      822 days ago

      Russia has more nukes. It also has weaker conventional armed forces and a history of nuclear sabor rattling, hence the US and its allies being nervous about a degraded MAD system.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        1922 days ago

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

        • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          322 days 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
            1222 days 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
              222 days 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
                522 days 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@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              222 days 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@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 days 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.

    • @eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      123 days ago

      It’s probably just a dick waving thing that’s meant to stress the blyats and get them to spend money on useless shit.