Russia has more nukes. It also has weaker conventional armed forces and a history of nuclear sabor rattling, hence the US and its allies being nervous about a degraded MAD system.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

5000 nukes is already enough to end civilization, what the fuck would having even more be worth?

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

With MAD, the idea is to be in the position that any adversary knows that if they attack you, they will be utterly annihilated. There should be no scenario under which an adversary sees a nuclear attack as advantageous. The US has aging systems and both China and Russia have been developing new capabilities. Numbers alone may not keep up, especially if a large number of missiles are disabled via nukes or other means.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

5000 nukes will annihilate everyone. Earth wouldn't recover for centuries.

Now, yes, delivery systems determine if the nukes can actually be used, but having more than 5000 nukes is just a hat on a hat. As long as they're 5000 functional nukes there's just no reason to have more.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Again, it's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of maintaining a credible MAD threat so that any adversaries does not see nuclear war as a viable option. Nuclear weapons are meant to be brandished credibly as a response, not used.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure that numbers are how you present a credible MAD threat.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bro watched Dr.Strangelove and took the wrong message

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Well, there are other parts to MAD. Things like keeping mil to mil communication open at all times, especially times of increased hostility, to avoid escalations. But in the end, it is insuring that the nuclear game is set such that it is never in anyone's best interest to set off nuclear weapons.