I love how even in a Liberal's wildest fantasies, the US still gets hit with 100 nukes. Even when it comes to nuclear armageddon, moderate centrism must win out.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
the_dunk_tank
16027 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Aren’t 6200 nukes enough to finish everyone no matter where on the globe they explode … ? That’s the premise of MAD, right?
The premise of MAD is that while ICBMs are essentially unstoppable, they can usually be detected early enough for a counterattack to occur. So with or without the world ending it guaranteed that USA and USSR would've been wiped out.
Thanks! And said detection, could it tell whether the ICBM for sure carries a nuke?
Idk, but unlike other ballistic missiles I don't think anyone bothers doing a non nuclear weapon because you'll probably be annihilated if you launch an icbm at a populated target.