- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
America striking a cowboy pose as they lean up against an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear payload, dramatically lights a cigarette with a match: … you fellas talkin bout something?
It’s funny, because almost all of our war plans were predicated on the idea that widespread use of this game-changing weapon simply would not happen in the case of a serious war with the opposition (with NATO plans having limited allowance for usage of nuclear weapons if overrun in Germany, but with the presumption - or hope - that the Soviets would not respond to that with an all-out nuclear assault).
Whether it was a correct or incorrect assumption, it is curious how mankind deals, psychologically, with these ever-advancing weapons and countermeasures.
Because at a certain point, it becomes just wishful thinking. It’s the same reason that all the people who are completely fine with causing death and misery on a global scale when they want to, have magically declared this one method of death and misery to be off limits. And against all odds (so far) actually stuck to it.
The reason is that there’s no way at all they can prevent it coming back around on them, and their families, no longer safe in their homes. More or less right away, and more or less guaranteed. And magically, all of a sudden, they turn sensible and humane.
single target (mostly) drones and crossbows versus multi target massive aoe weapons is like apples vs oranges shit. but yeah, the nuke is gonna get back at the ones in power.
Nukes really didn’t much affect military meta or combat though.
Just the willingness to engage in it.
The average soldier doesn’t really need to worry about nukes, but they do need to worry about drones.
As I was reading the top post about drones, I immediately thought of crossbows.
