Obama to spend 1 trillion on upgrading nuclear warheads

[I am lizard]

[removed]

[Askold]

a) The nuclear deterrent will be less effective if your enemies think that the nukes won't work.

b) The nuclear deterrent will be less effective if your enemies think that your nukes are so inaccurate that you won't dare to fire them near your own troops.

c) If your nukes are more accurate your military can urge the president to use them by claiming that there is no risk of collateral damage since you can simply aim for the military targets.

[Askold]

I said "claiming" that there is no risk for collateral damage.

[Art Vandelay]

Hey, nukes are great. They're the reason WWII didn't have a proper sequel. Everyone keeps a few of those bad boys on hand, and suddenly no one wants to fight anything bigger than the odd very localised proxy war.

[I am lizard]

[removed]

[Svata]

Yeah, nukes are absolutely unthreatening to your neighbors.

[I am lizard]

[removed]

[Art Vandelay]

Hey, nukes are great. They're the reason WWII didn't have a proper sequel. Everyone keeps a few of those bad boys on hand, and suddenly no one wants to fight anything bigger than the odd very localised proxy war.

Israel has gotten attacked numerous times despite having nukes. India got into several skirmishes with Pakistan, including one when both sides had nukes, Russia is pretty openly engaging in war against the Ukraine despite them having nukes for protection by proxy. The U.K. Had a war with Argentina as well.

It seems pretty clear that nukes don't even totally prevent war between countries, and we would be better off sticking to methods that can't kill millions by accident.

Like I said, they don't stop smaller wars, especially when one side is both nukeless and outmatched. My point was they stop the big, global wars between superpowers. The kind we would've certainly had between the US and USSR shortly after WWII were it not for both sides sitting on a pile of nukes. Mutually assured destruction is the sole reason we had the Cold War instead of WWIII.

[Svata]

Yeah, nukes are absolutely unthreatening to your neighbors.

I didn't say they weren't, I said they don't prevent conflict.

I was agreeing...

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Hey, nukes are great. They're the reason WWII didn't have a proper sequel. Everyone keeps a few of those bad boys on hand, and suddenly no one wants to fight anything bigger than the odd very localised proxy war.

Israel has gotten attacked numerous times despite having nukes. India got into several skirmishes with Pakistan, including one when both sides had nukes, Russia is pretty openly engaging in war against the Ukraine despite them having nukes for protection by proxy. The U.K. Had a war with Argentina as well.

It seems pretty clear that nukes don't even totally prevent war between countries, and we would be better off sticking to methods that can't kill millions by accident.

Like I said, they don't stop smaller wars, especially when one side is both nukeless and outmatched. My point was they stop the big, global wars between superpowers. The kind we would've certainly had between the US and USSR shortly after WWII were it not for both sides sitting on a pile of nukes. Mutually assured destruction is the sole reason we had the Cold War instead of WWIII.

Sans cold war you still have your civilisation destroying, citizen frying hellmachines but can't be arsed maintaining them.

It'd be interesting to know how that money is going to be spent, with largely classified budgets in an area Joe Public doesn't spend a lot of time pondering I bet there's a shitload of rorting going on.