likesfish
You can't park here sir
9K720 Iskander - Wikipedia
vlad basically pissed over this treaty back in 2016
vlad basically pissed over this treaty back in 2016
US nuclear weapons: first low-yield warheads roll off the production line
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
CRI
Registered Chooser
True, but Trump pretending he's got his panties in a bunch about it right now?
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Frankly I cannot imagine any scenario within our lifetime (or beyond for that matter) in which a total nuclear disarmament was achieved. Unless it was replaced by a new kind of weapon with similar total destruction capabilities. There is no way in my view the big two nuclear nations would agree to permanently rid themselves of their nukes and become vulnerable to any nation or faction that somehow acquired them in the future. No way. Perhaps the likes of the UK and France, but good luck getting China, India, Pakistan or Israel to agree to ditch them.
A new arms race is bad news but not because the more nukes in the US & Russia's arsenals means the higher the risk, but because this is happening out of increased tension and hostility. I'd say the late term Cold War period when relations between the US and USSR were constantly improving should be considered less of a risk of a nuclear holocaust with their 10,000 warheads each than right now (or perhaps in the near future) with Trump and Putin in charge with 'only' 1,500-odd warheads each.
Not that it matters for the fate of mankind with those numbers anyway. We'd be equally as fucked with a war involving 3,000 combined warheads as 20,000. Guessing numbers here but anything involving more than a few hundred nukes worldwide would very likely cause end civilisation as we know it even in the exchange was limited to the two countries in question.
A new arms race is bad news but not because the more nukes in the US & Russia's arsenals means the higher the risk, but because this is happening out of increased tension and hostility. I'd say the late term Cold War period when relations between the US and USSR were constantly improving should be considered less of a risk of a nuclear holocaust with their 10,000 warheads each than right now (or perhaps in the near future) with Trump and Putin in charge with 'only' 1,500-odd warheads each.
Not that it matters for the fate of mankind with those numbers anyway. We'd be equally as fucked with a war involving 3,000 combined warheads as 20,000. Guessing numbers here but anything involving more than a few hundred nukes worldwide would very likely cause end civilisation as we know it even in the exchange was limited to the two countries in question.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
It works for guns. If you're a fucking stupid gullible yank.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Not a fucking hope the good ol' US of A will ever ditch them. They know it's only a matter of time before someone hits them.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
World governments in "You need us to give this money to our friends, because terrorists" shocker.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Nukes have the whole aura of ultimate weapon civilisation would probably survive India and Pakistan trading nukes or is real and Iran wiping one another out.
Although a world where nuclear weapons are used would be much worse than here.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
I imagine the Russians aren’t having to pay eye watering amounts to the shareholders of Lockheed/Boeing etc., so spending comparisons won’t be like for like.
Similar threads
- Poll
