Which part of the nuclear triad would you prefer to get rid of?
Show this thread
-
As a general trend, a lot of critique of weapons systems/platforms/etc focus mostly on the specific means, rather than the policy the tech was built to serve. Worth framing critiques as about both.
Show this thread
The good ICBM critiques show that they are often the same thing — that the technology and the policy are joined at the hip. (ICBMs produce "use it or lose it" pressures that don't exist to same degree as subs or bombers, thus "forcing" a Launch on Warning posture.)
-
-
Yes, stationary ICBMs create large, expensive targets for a first strike, no matter how much you harden the silos.
-
Might even encourage a larger first strike to maximize damage to retaliatory capability.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Most defense policies are driven by technology-missile defense, naval carrier groups, heavy divisions, etc. if the ICBMs went away (which will never happen as long as Congress is involved), the bombers would be brought back on alert. Count on it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.