leftyretro
- Joined Nov 25, 2008
- 395
Well I'm not so pessimistic about the possible threat of nuclear weapons being used in the future. It's been 65 years sense that last one was used in anger, has there been any time in history where a major weapon was avalible but not used over that long a time span?
In reality no rational state would use it because the assurance of retaliatory actions. The MAD doctrine did seem to be effective on both major parties of the Cold War. That leaves non rational states and non state terrorist/radicals. These parties need to be watched carefully, but I don't loose any sleep over them. I think gradually these weapons will be phased out or negotiated out of use, as the modern smart and stealth weapons and delivery systems are becoming just as effective in bringing about regime change without the large collateral damage the thermonuclear weapons do.
By the way I served in SAC at a minuteman missile base in Montana in the late 60s, it was a pretty assume system in it's day. While still in service it's kind of a waste of money these days. I think we could rely just on sub based nucs as a deterrent until nucs are phased out.
Lefty
In reality no rational state would use it because the assurance of retaliatory actions. The MAD doctrine did seem to be effective on both major parties of the Cold War. That leaves non rational states and non state terrorist/radicals. These parties need to be watched carefully, but I don't loose any sleep over them. I think gradually these weapons will be phased out or negotiated out of use, as the modern smart and stealth weapons and delivery systems are becoming just as effective in bringing about regime change without the large collateral damage the thermonuclear weapons do.
By the way I served in SAC at a minuteman missile base in Montana in the late 60s, it was a pretty assume system in it's day. While still in service it's kind of a waste of money these days. I think we could rely just on sub based nucs as a deterrent until nucs are phased out.
Lefty