Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by throwaway742 on Friday March 17, 2023 @08:59PM
(#35204909)
There was that time that 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium went "missing".
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by causality0 on Friday March 17, 2023 @08:54PM
(#35204887)
why would the US want to do that?
"The US" wouldn't. People in the US with great political power would.
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by HyperSane on Friday March 17, 2023 @09:13PM
(#35205024)
Why?
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by causality0 on Friday March 17, 2023 @09:18PM
(#35205061)
Maybe they were paid for it. Maybe they were threatened or blackmailed for it. Maybe they feel a political, religious, or ethnic loyalty to another country. Plenty of people in the US are more than happy to do things that run counter to the US' interests. The entire American military-industrial complex directly benefits from the US being more in danger because it means they get more money.
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by xwolfi on Friday March 17, 2023 @11:03PM
(#35205639)
If a Russian colonel aboard a submarine refused direct order to launch a nuke at the height of the cold war, I think we can assume very few are the people ready to deal with nuclear bombs for a buck.
Many things can cross moral boundaries, but I think I d rather deal in drugs and slaves, tanks and assault rifles than uranium, if only for money. And if not for money, only for national survival.
We struggled in France to finish our fusion bomb design and a british double agent pointed us at the best model we had that was similar to the british one, we're not sure if he did it for France or because the British wanted us to have it too, but it wasn't for money, for instance, even if it was a terrible decision to make as a human for him Im sure.
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by causality0 on Saturday March 18, 2023 @10:32AM
(#35209427)
If I could push a button and give three or four nuclear weapons to Ukraine, I'd do it without hesitation.
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by squarefoot on Saturday March 18, 2023 @07:52PM
(#35214437)
To transform them into the bad guys instantly? No thanks, I'd rather give them enough troops and conventional weapons so that whatever thing Russia throws at them is being intercepted, and Russian land troops essentially would hit a wall.
That way Russia would be forced to either withdraw (= Putin political and possibly physical death), continue until all their conventional arsenal is depleted (= same as above, just later), or resort to nukes (= likely destruction by NATO).
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by HyperSane on Saturday March 18, 2023 @07:56PM
(#35214459)
What would Ukraine do with them?
Re:The U.S. military is missing six nuclear weapons
by causality0 on Sunday March 19, 2023 @03:53PM
(#35222863)
Same thing everyone else does: point at them and say "you can never take our capitol without far more casualties than it is worth".
But the more convincing logic is: why would the US want to do that? The fewer other nations have nuclear weapons, the more power the US has over them, either because it can threaten to attack them or because it can provide nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Stationing US weapons in a foreign country and getting to set up a forward base? Heck yeah. Giving up control of those weapons and maybe having them turned against you decades down the line? Not a chance.