Yeah. Problem is that apparently people currently at the top are scared of losing it so much, they are willing to wager that they will remain at the top of whatever remains after.
Looks at the small village “It is better to be first here than second in Rome”
Most “tactical” nuclear weapons have way less yield than the first atomic bombs, which have all been decommissioned in favor of “tactical” and lower yield missiles.
Nuclear weapons are still devastating, but not quite as much as before. Nuclear weapons would best be suited to attack military-based targets, which themselves would have defenses, radar and other countermeasures and backup plans. Targeting civillians in large numbers would be a waste of effort, money and time, and would just draw the ire of the victimized nation which would still target military facilities.
Despite the U.S. having a stranglehold hegemony on the world, countries would still refuse to participate or make political and diplomatic moves to criticize or withdraw away from U.S. atrocities and blunders.
And with many major countries, especially socialist and anti-imperialist countries having nuclear weapons, the strategy of the U.S. deploying nuclear weapons greatly backfire. People are prone to make rash decisions and the bourgeoisie would sooner destroy than give up and rebuild, I think its incredibly unlikely that the U.S. would turn to nuclear weapons, since the field is much more even now, so to speak.
The problem is that such a war will very likely go nuclear and then we’re all done for
Yeah. Problem is that apparently people currently at the top are scared of losing it so much, they are willing to wager that they will remain at the top of whatever remains after.
Looks at the small village “It is better to be first here than second in Rome”
I don’t think the risk of nuclear war is that high.
The US already dropped two nukes in war time. They pulled out of nuclear treaties. They have been developing “tactical” nukes.
I am confident a nuke will be deployed in theatre within my lifetime.
Most “tactical” nuclear weapons have way less yield than the first atomic bombs, which have all been decommissioned in favor of “tactical” and lower yield missiles.
Nuclear weapons are still devastating, but not quite as much as before. Nuclear weapons would best be suited to attack military-based targets, which themselves would have defenses, radar and other countermeasures and backup plans. Targeting civillians in large numbers would be a waste of effort, money and time, and would just draw the ire of the victimized nation which would still target military facilities.
Despite the U.S. having a stranglehold hegemony on the world, countries would still refuse to participate or make political and diplomatic moves to criticize or withdraw away from U.S. atrocities and blunders.
And with many major countries, especially socialist and anti-imperialist countries having nuclear weapons, the strategy of the U.S. deploying nuclear weapons greatly backfire. People are prone to make rash decisions and the bourgeoisie would sooner destroy than give up and rebuild, I think its incredibly unlikely that the U.S. would turn to nuclear weapons, since the field is much more even now, so to speak.
modern nukes can be several times stronger than little boy and fat man.
I’m sure they could be developed that way, but most modern nukes are closer to missiles.
nukes are carried on missiles, yes, but there’s little point to building a nuke with the same explosive yield as conventional weapons.
After all, the people in charge still want to be in charge.