zephyreks@lemmy.mlM to World News@lemmy.ml · 7 months agoU.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cutswww.nytimes.comexternal-linkmessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up1174arrow-down17cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1167arrow-down1external-linkU.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cutswww.nytimes.comzephyreks@lemmy.mlM to World News@lemmy.ml · 7 months agomessage-square64fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareCypher@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·7 months agoUnless the enemy can intercept the missiles, then you need more to guarantee first strike capability. If you need 500 nukes to hit and the enemy can destroy 90% of missiles then you build 5000+
minus-squarequeermunist she/her@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up5·7 months agoAgain, that’s more about delivery systems than just having more nukes. The capacity to intercept comes down to how fast and stealthy the missiles are.
Unless the enemy can intercept the missiles, then you need more to guarantee first strike capability.
If you need 500 nukes to hit and the enemy can destroy 90% of missiles then you build 5000+
Again, that’s more about delivery systems than just having more nukes. The capacity to intercept comes down to how fast and stealthy the missiles are.