you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

for real once they have nukes they can never shoot another missile at the entity unless they really mean it

and no more missiles falling on tel aviv would be a world-historic tragedy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Why? There are a number of examples of conflicts between nuclear states that haven't evolved into a nuclear exchange.

    It's an incredibly dangerous game, but it matches the stakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    They are in a conflict NOW, and that makes all the difference. Why would you announce a nuclear device during an active conflict unless you mean to use it? Everyone would interpret the next missile as a nuclear warhead and retaliate accordingly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago

    If the idea is to deter aggression -- not to actually use them on a target -- you'd want your enemy to know what you have. It's like brandishing a gun to make someone back off. The threat doesn't work if it's hidden.

    This is even a joke in Dr. Stragelove: "they built a doomsday machine but didn't tell anyone about it??"

  • source
  • parent