• Chaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

        We don’t know exactly how much “most” is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

          • Madison@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            51 minutes ago

            Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

            The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

            Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

            It’s like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

            Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you’re to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

        • Chaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don’t just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn’t really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

          Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn’t be much better

            • Lumisal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Doesn’t that depend on how they’re set up? I’d imagine in the 50+ years since they’ve been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

              I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they’re not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won’t work if used.

    • diffusive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.

      You can destroy the world just so many times.

      The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)

    • Resand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point

    • Hackworth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare… umm… party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?