this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
412 points (96.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3505 readers
755 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO

[–] [email protected] 3 points 36 minutes ago

It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 hours ago

In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.

You can destroy the world just so many times.

The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point

[–] [email protected] 1 points 37 minutes ago

And I expect they will get nukes real fast. Ukraine is probably going to go for that, tbh. It’s kinda their only option at this point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare... umm... party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?