125
Dunno how reliable it is but good, the faster they get a nuclear weapon, obviously the better. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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??"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent