Something I think about and feel bad about is the "nuclear sponge". Why do we have a bunch of ICBMs in the midwest? So that if someone wants to nuke NYC, they have to nuke the Great Plains first, or face total destruction. Makes nuclear war that much more expensive. Of course, it's kind of an outdated assumption that that alone would be enough; we still have bombers and submarine-launched missiles.
I have mixed feelings about mutually assured destruction; it would be nice if the human race couldn't destroy the entire planet. But, it does make sense on some level. Why don't you go up to lions in the zoo and pet them? I bet they're soft! The reason you don't is because you know it will bite your arm off. We hope the same logic applies to nuclear first strikes. (I also feel a little bad knowing that my country is the only one that ever used nuclear weapons. The world didn't end, but that's little consolation for the 200,000 civilians we vaporized in an instant.)
Rather, the silo fields were dispersed to get out of range of sub launched missiles or soviet ICBMs that would go over the N pole, which is why some of them are very close to the Mexican border in NM (like the Titan IIs around Roswell). Of course, potential modern Russian ICBMs that have the range to go over the South Pole negate this defense and also any midrange ABM interception possibilities.
I also suspect that silo locations were an early example of Congressional pork. Or, just located next to exiting SAC bases for logistical reasons, like Beale AFB in northern California.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/f...
I think that "launch on warning" was an official policy at some point. I am not sure if it is anymore. I don't think it's a good one and it's not necessary to deter a first strike. The missiles are underground and at unknown locations in the ocean for that reason.
As for crazy presidents, yup, that is a legitimate concern. I am not sure why we put commanding the armed forces into the hands of one person. (The advantage is that one person can decisively retaliate after a surprise strike on Washington. The disadvantage is that a drunk Twitter war can escalate to ending the world. Sigh!)
As for irrational actors, that's another big problem. What does North Korea lose if they nuke the US? Not much; they don't have a huge economy as it is. It's a nice "fuck you" if the reigning dictator sees that the end of their regime is inevitable. MAD doesn't help with that at all.
It's all actually pretty scary. We like to think that the cold war is over, but really, not all the countries of the world are at peace right now, so everything could be over in the blink of the eye and you won't see it coming. I guess keep all that in mind as you plan your day!
Numerator is nuclear wars? Nuclear bombs dropped? People killed by nuclear bombs? Years with a nuclear bomb dropped?
Denominator is total wars? Number of bombs dropped? People killed in war? Years passed?
By some numerators and denominators, we’re well into 99.99999x territory.
And they’re the lucky ones.
People make fun of the fifties 'just make it look like everyone was happy' mindset, but can you blame these people? He was a young Iowa farm boy. He grew up riding his horse to school, no cars. Then off to be a Marine in the Pacific (because he and everyone from his town was too recent of German descent to be trusted to go to Europe, plus the town had a German language newspaper before the war, which of course, by the end, no trace of being German was left. Only red blooded American English speakers) who saw the effects of nuclear war. Dude just wanted to drink a beer and listen to polka music on Laurence Welk.
> More than 90,000 and possibly over 100,000 Japanese people were killed, mostly civilians, and one million were left homeless, making it the most destructive single air attack in human history.
Firebombing is bad, but nukes are also really bad, there's no need to treat them as if they're merciful.