alios

One thing I think is worth to mention is that strategic nuclear weapons are defensive weapons by the definition.

If #ukrain would have kept its arsenal - #russia wouldn't have attacked them.

The same for #iran and the #us.

Even the term "nuclear shield" states it: its a defensive thing.

So everyone claiming #iran would attack #israel the next day if they had nuclear weapons only shows that (s)he has not even basic knowledge about nuclear strategy.

2:44pmWeb
Show threadAerofreak | USA WTF?13h ago

@alios

Correct. In political science, this is referred to as nuclear deterrence.

Show threadWeltenverbummler12h ago
@aerofreak @alios nuclear deterrence only works, as long as you can assume reason as the dominant Motivation. If hate is prior to reason, than things change.
Show threadalios12h ago
@synRRg true ... so we should reason which actors seem to act reasonable and which not ... @aerofreak
Show threadAerofreak | USA WTF?11h ago

@synRRg
Rationality in government can be lost over time, as we are currently seeing.

@alios

Show threadAndi Popp 🇺🇦🎗️13h ago

@alios Everything you say is true, but it's important to add, that this is only true for rational actors with perfect information.

If you don't have wrong information, you might "accidentally" lunch a nuclear strike. There were few close calls during the cold war.

If your not rational, you might think that a small nuke on Tel-Aviv might be a good idea. God wills it, doesn't he?

Show threadalios12h ago
@AndiPopp full ack - basically my motivation for that toot: trigger people to reason about rationality of current actors in the theater ;)
Show threadR.L. LE13h ago
@alios On the other hand, Iran is known for supporting shadowy militias outside its territory, that can be claimed to require defense, when they are attacked in retaliation for previous terror attacks, for instance with Katjushas.
I believe IDF when they say, they are concerned about such a fabricated incident – and those potential delivery systems are a different deal from the Cold War scenarios.
Apart from that, IMHO, Tehran has never in decades been a "rational actor" in this sense.
Show threadalios12h ago

@herrLorenz Sure every new nuclear actor requires all other actors to react to that and especially the existing nuclear actors have good reasons to not want that...

I cant imagine any (rational) offensive scenario where the use of strategic nuclear weapons would bring you any benifit.

Show threadR.L. LE12h ago
@alios I agree that tactical benefits that some cuckoo hardliners claim to favor are ludicrous, at best, but the more I know, the less I trust in the continued prevalence of reasonability – when battlefield commanders agitate their flock into some sort of Holy War, and Hegseth encourages that, these are desperate times for many forms of enlightened, practical reason.
Show threadalios12h ago
@herrLorenz In context of the #coldwar powers I guess both systems where pretty prepared for those kind of scenarios (to not let a convential war escalate accidentally to nuclear). One big difference is actually that the #russian model is perpared for the top of command chain gone mentally ill - the #us model isn't ... this what i fear most (in combination to the Säuberungen in the US general staff)
Show threadR.L. LE12h ago
@alios On the other hand, AFAIK there's quite a bit of OPS cutting corners in both militaries mentioned – Hegseth's loyalty mongering might further contribute to a decay of institutional, non-partisan operability concerns; when it comes to that, Russia is far gone down this road, already.
If general wonkiness contributes to "nothing actually happened", that's probably good for something, 🙃
If.