• r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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.