Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DIBE25 t1_iycwaro wrote

they require a smaller number of warheads to cripple a city

so.. it's cheaper and easier

gravity bombs are plenty destructive, along with conventional explosives

but nukes almost guarantee you're going to also kill your targets (see: a hypothetical scenario where you need to kill everyone in your enemy's country, or try) unlike gravity bombs or conventional warheads

so it's better from a logistical perspective to use small medium range nukes along with gliders and the like than risk failing by having your planes fail to deliver your bombs

tldr: more kaboom per volume and you can be far away when that happens..

..it's not like you'll live long anyway

edit:

I know MAD is a thing

just wanted to say that nukes are used instead of conventional warheads - the point of MAD is to never get to the tipping point, however close you may get

−4

1BannedAgain t1_iycyoek wrote

Counterpoint: Mutually Assured Destruction

6

DIBE25 t1_iydviwu wrote

the goal is to never have to reach that

there's that cycle of armament and disarmament of which we've mostly seen one high and one starting low and another low now

this is to say and I hope it makes sense

it's to supposedly be good at something you hope you'll never have to do because it's a damn good way of signing your own death certificate

tldr: be good destroying your enemy in theory and hope it works out

that's MAD explained in a really bad way

0

kongartist t1_iycxl9z wrote

Yes but then all that territory is useless to you, completely irradiated for decades. Plus all of the other long term climate effects. Just stupid on many levels.

5

NaCly_Asian t1_iyd9r6h wrote

not really. the use of nukes wouldn't be to win a war. it will be to make sure the enemy loses. I'm sure if your nukes wipes out 98+% of the enemy civilian population, the enemy military will probably start questioning whether it was worth the fight.

1