• Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Isn’t China one of the countries that already has enough nukes to glass the entire world multiple times over?

    What difference does it make if they have even more?

    …or is that stat bullshit? I’ve heard it parroted pretty much my entire life, but never actually thought to fact check it until now.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea is that you scatter them around so that it couldn’t be taken out with a single attack, and you also want more than a few per location as various countermeasures diminishes the chances of them actually hitting.

      But yes, it’s kind of pointless as if we ever reach the point of nuclear war, it will be total destruction as everyone will use their full arsenals to avoid giving any other country an advantage post nuclear winter.

    • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “The results found that 100 nuclear warheads are adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society.” – source

      You had the same reaction I did. Seems like once you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy humanity, you have more than enough.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but I think it’s more psychological than practical. Nuclear warheads have had a bit of a mental version of the inverse ninja law. The reality is that two nuclear weapons have been used in real world conflict and they were catastrophically devastating enough to stop a nation that was potentially willing to fight to the last dead civilian. Those weapons were also small, weak, and easily disrupted compared to today’s. We’re not really good at understanding that France can destroy life on earth just as effectively as the US and China so when someone has thousands they’re scarier than someone with 200, even though 200 would do more than enough damage to everyone