this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
99 points (97.1% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3536 readers
263 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
The point, as I understand it, is that nuclear war can be technically won by nuking the enemy to smithereens and tanking their nukes as best as possible. The concern here is that because this would technically count as a victory, that it is a battle tactic that elitist assholes in the government have no doubt considered using.
Reality isn't a video game: you can't just "tank nukes".
Even a limited nuclear conflict between, say, India and Pakistan would likely lead to a global food security disaster and could kill up to a third of the world's population – see eg this article (open access). That's using less than 3% of the world's total nuclear stockpile
edit: welp I didn't notice I was in NCD
It doesn't matter how well you can tank the enemy nukes when yours alone still fuck the climate and ruin the biosphere.
But yeah, some numpty with their head up their ass probably plans on ruling over the ashes.
Maybe you can take out the air fields and the silos before anything has left the ground, maybe, but the subs are already out at sea.
MIRV makes interception dubious...
MIRV doesn't deploy until after re-entry. Modern interception occurs mid course, in orbit.