World News

32285 readers

531 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

193

U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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+

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I'm pretty sure that numbers are how you present a credible MAD threat.