The point, as I understand it, is that nuclear war can be technically won by nuking the enemy to smithereens and tanking their nukes as best as possible. The concern here is that because this would technically count as a victory, that it is a battle tactic that elitist assholes in the government have no doubt considered using.

[–] theunknownmuncher 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe you can take out the air fields and the silos before anything has left the ground, maybe, but the subs are already out at sea.

MIRV makes interception dubious...

[–] Maggoty 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

MIRV doesn't deploy until after re-entry. Modern interception occurs mid course, in orbit.

[–] Passerby6497 12 points 2 months ago

It doesn't matter how well you can tank the enemy nukes when yours alone still fuck the climate and ruin the biosphere.

But yeah, some numpty with their head up their ass probably plans on ruling over the ashes.

[–] PugJesus 10 points 2 months ago

No more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Reality isn't a video game: you can't just "tank nukes".

Even a limited nuclear conflict between, say, India and Pakistan would likely lead to a global food security disaster and could kill up to a third of the world's population – see eg this article (open access). That's using less than 3% of the world's total nuclear stockpile

edit: welp I didn't notice I was in NCD