• Chaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

          We don’t know exactly how much “most” is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

          • Chaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don’t just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

            • Madison@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

              The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

              Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

              It’s like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

              Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you’re to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

          • Lumisal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn’t really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

            Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn’t be much better

              • Lumisal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Doesn’t that depend on how they’re set up? I’d imagine in the 50+ years since they’ve been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

                I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they’re not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won’t work if used.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.

                  They upgrade them, it’s public knowledge for the budget. Usually it’s faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.

                  • Lumisal@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    But any knowledge on how modern triggering works on them I’d imagine would be kept a state secret wouldn’t it? I don’t think it’s something you’d want others to know.

      • diffusive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months 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)

      • Resand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

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

    • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.