I honestly think this is a fed-driven psyop, just not in the way you'd think.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else seen a common thread on twitter and forums and 4chan? The idea that nuclear war isn't really that bad, that it's manageable, survivable even. Something that can be controlled. We don't need to worry about going to war with people whom have nukes, we can counter them easily. Or said nukes are so old that they may not even work, how about that?
Perhaps I'm just schizo-posting, but I think there's a massive effort in some fed think-tanks to drive the idea that war against nuclear powers is either permissible and/or good. That they're so driven for another goddamn war that they've starting to press against the idea of nukes being a civilization/planet ender that the left have been rubbing themselves raw over for the past several decades.
Limited nuclear war was the defacto outlook for the entire Cold War. Russia thought it's "tactical nukes" could be used on European & NATO forces without drawing the ICBM arsenals of UK, France & USA. So they planned on using them, along with chemicals too.
The two Japanese cities were rebuilt just as easily as the rest which were destroyed with ordinary bombs of firebombs. They were really small nukes of course.
MAD is based on the USA and USSR lobbing ALL their ICBMs all at once. "Use em or lose em" was the way it was back then. It would have been ugly losing hundreds of cities all at once, the entire world would feel it.
Irony Alert! Peaceniks protested the cruise missile back in the day, claiming it would make war even more dangerous. In fact it is a "second strike" weapon, like ICBMs on submarines: it would easily survive the lobbing of all the ICBMs and be ready for a "second strike" at whatever the first wave missed. That made MAD even better! Preventing war because each side knew it couldn't win with a surprise attack.
I honestly think this is a fed-driven psyop, just not in the way you'd think.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else seen a common thread on twitter and forums and 4chan? The idea that nuclear war isn't really that bad, that it's manageable, survivable even. Something that can be controlled. We don't need to worry about going to war with people whom have nukes, we can counter them easily. Or said nukes are so old that they may not even work, how about that?
Perhaps I'm just schizo-posting, but I think there's a massive effort in some fed think-tanks to drive the idea that war against nuclear powers is either permissible and/or good. That they're so driven for another goddamn war that they've starting to press against the idea of nukes being a civilization/planet ender that the left have been rubbing themselves raw over for the past several decades.
This is just another step in that direction.
Or I could be utterly delusional. Who knows?
Limited nuclear war was the defacto outlook for the entire Cold War. Russia thought it's "tactical nukes" could be used on European & NATO forces without drawing the ICBM arsenals of UK, France & USA. So they planned on using them, along with chemicals too.
The two Japanese cities were rebuilt just as easily as the rest which were destroyed with ordinary bombs of firebombs. They were really small nukes of course.
MAD is based on the USA and USSR lobbing ALL their ICBMs all at once. "Use em or lose em" was the way it was back then. It would have been ugly losing hundreds of cities all at once, the entire world would feel it.
Irony Alert! Peaceniks protested the cruise missile back in the day, claiming it would make war even more dangerous. In fact it is a "second strike" weapon, like ICBMs on submarines: it would easily survive the lobbing of all the ICBMs and be ready for a "second strike" at whatever the first wave missed. That made MAD even better! Preventing war because each side knew it couldn't win with a surprise attack.