Posted on Nov 30, 2020
successful-u-missile-intercept-ends-060017616.html
668
10
5
4
4
0
Interesting read and concepts.
"At first glimpse, this sort of technological wizardry would seem to be a cause for not only awe but also joy, for it promises to protect the U.S. from missile attacks by North Korea, for example. But in the weird logic of nuclear strategy, a breakthrough intended to make us safer could end up making us less safe.
That’s because the new interception technology cuts the link between offense and defense that underlies all calculations about nuclear scenarios. Since the Cold War, stability — and thus peace — has been preserved through the macabre reality of mutual assured destruction, or MAD. No nation will launch a first strike if it expects immediate retaliation in kind. A different way of describing MAD is mutual vulnerability."
"At first glimpse, this sort of technological wizardry would seem to be a cause for not only awe but also joy, for it promises to protect the U.S. from missile attacks by North Korea, for example. But in the weird logic of nuclear strategy, a breakthrough intended to make us safer could end up making us less safe.
That’s because the new interception technology cuts the link between offense and defense that underlies all calculations about nuclear scenarios. Since the Cold War, stability — and thus peace — has been preserved through the macabre reality of mutual assured destruction, or MAD. No nation will launch a first strike if it expects immediate retaliation in kind. A different way of describing MAD is mutual vulnerability."
successful-u-missile-intercept-ends-060017616.html
Posted from finance.yahoo.com
Nuclear
Russia
China
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
2
2
0
I'd rather be protected by technological exceptionalism and trust that the assured destruction of an enemy attacking us is enough to deter them
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I honestly do not see how it changes anything in the calculus because the Nuclear shield or ABM's can be circumvented via other technology which still keeps the logic on the MAD side of the fence.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Yeah, I thought that was interesting. I was drawn into the article's title, which didn't auto-populate here - "A Successful U.S. Missile Intercept Ends the Era of Nuclear Stability" - and I thought, how? I think the author is trying to say that since we have the ability to destroy incoming nukes (tenuously, at least), we don't have to honor MAD because our destruction is no longer assured.
But yes, I agree with you. Especially with those Russian hypersonic submarine sea nukes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System)
But yes, I agree with you. Especially with those Russian hypersonic submarine sea nukes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google