Re:US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt
by JumpCrisscross on Saturday March 08, 2025 @08:58AM
(#43300301)
> It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable
There is no world in which Pakistan could nuke America. I agree on the effect—nukes gave Islamabad cover it wouldn’t have had without them. But the mechanism isn’t military strategic, but something deeper.
Re:US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt
by somenameforme on Saturday March 08, 2025 @10:00AM
(#43300760)
There are many ways to deliver nukes other than ICBMs.
Nukes are also the ultimate defensive weapon. Any forces, ships, etc deployed on or near their territory would be toast. One of the many reasons that naval forces are largely obsolete. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks worth tens of billions of dollars. Pakistan's known nuclear capable missiles have a range of 2750km which means even long distance aerial bombardment is not an answer.
It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable. This [1] describes the effect of a tiny 0.15Mt nuke going off in NYC. The largest nuke ever detonated was 50+Mt, so more than 300x the yield of what's described there.
And that's one nuke. Pakistan is believed to have hundreds of nukes, and nuclear weapons are also designed such that a single missile will have multiple warheads that will splinter off not only increasing the destruction but also making any sort of missile defense even less viable.
[1] - https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/inde...