Tyndmyr wrote:Basic game theory.
More nukes is more threat.
No it's not. Being able to destroy the world a thousand times over is no more threat than being able to destroy the world 500 times over. That's so last century thinking.
is more threat. Better intelligence
is more threat. Better hypersonic self-guided conventional
missiles is more threat.
Every dollar spent on extra nukes is a dollar not spent on bonafide military improvement.
Like I say, we should be encouraging
Russia to spend more on nukes to improve their e-peen rating, not discouraging it (or, worse, engaging in it ourselves.)
There are not enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over. There are, perhaps, enough nukes to destroy humanity. Not all of it, mind, but modern civilization would certainly take a beating.
Additional nukes provide greater redundancy. Greater second strike capability. Ability to hit more targets. Yes, each additional target or redundant warhead increases expected lethality less than the one before it, but it still produces an increase.
"destroying the world a thousand times over" is pure cold war hyperbole.
And the anti-nuke folks aren't even consistent. If doubling the number of nukes did not increase the danger, then why celebrating halving the number? Surely no additional safety has been produced. They do not act as though they believe that the current stockpile will destroy the world a thousand times over.
So no, nobody actually believes that non factual nonsense.