There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Womble ,

There are, the authors estimate, 150 Russian remote nuclear launch sites and 70 in China, approximately 2,500km (1,550 miles) from the nearest border, all of which could be reached by US air-launched JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles in a little more than two hours in an initial attack designed to prevent nuclear weapons being launched.

Emphasis mine, I’m pretty sure even Russia can notice hundreds of cruise missiles are heading directly at their silos and figure out that this looks like an attack on their strategic nuclear arsenal in two whole hours, given that ICBMs take around a quarter of that from launch to impact.

Makeitstop ,

And even if these cruise missiles were completely undetectable, it would still fail unless the strike takes out 100% of the enemy nukes. If even one is able to survive, you risk a nuclear holocaust.

Being able to theoretically wipe our all the enemy nukes without using any of your own is strategically nice to have, but on its own it isn’t enough to negate the threat of a nuclear exchange. At best, it should make your enemy more reluctant to retaliate with a nuclear launch, assuming they realize that they aren’t getting nuked and that a launch would potentially change that.

CanadaPlus ,

Yeah, the West pushing the first strike and anti-second-strike envelope is a real problem, but that’s not a good example.

masterspace ,

a) How are they destroying the submarines with cruise missiles?

b) This is only an issue if China or Russia seriously believed that the US would be likely to start World War 3, which seems pretty hard to believe.

CanadaPlus ,

If the US thought they could attack China and get away with it they wouldn’t at first, but ten years in? You bet there’d be people questioning why the US is allowing [insert real or imagined Chinese human rights violation] on their watch. Is [current administration] really American enough?

That’s my assessment as a Canadian. You average CCP guy probably thinks it would be immediate, and would involve Han Chinese being treated the way their regime treats minorities.

MAD only works because it’s a Nash equilibrium not requiring good faith.

Carrolade ,

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against arms control agreements if they’re interested. Are they interested though?

ralphio ,

I’d imagine yes, but primarily since they’re behind.

Manifish_Destiny ,

That still counts

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@mander.xyz avatar

Yes, starting stupid wars and botching them in front of the whole world makes you vulnerable.

TryingOutNewThings ,
@TryingOutNewThings@discuss.online avatar

You mean the US?

vga ,

It would be amazing if all their ICBMs could be just wiped out, but I’m a bit skeptical whether that’s actually true. Even without considering all the submarines.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/05/us-arms-advantage-over-russia-and-china-threatens-stability-experts-warn

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •