obey@lemmy.wtf 10 hours ago
Well russians got same idea, what’s the point of the world if russia is not in it ;D not surprised at all, they’re just old mad wankers
obey@lemmy.wtf 10 hours ago
Well russians got same idea, what’s the point of the world if russia is not in it ;D not surprised at all, they’re just old mad wankers
Transform2942@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
Ok so no this is completely wrong.
Russia’s “Dead Hand” is a “guaranteed second-strike” that activates only if their nuclear C&C is destroyed. This system is precisely designed to reinforce the logic of MAD and is thus counter-escalatory.
This from the Zionist entity is the complete and total opposite in every possible way. They talk about it as though it is defensive but this is a first-strike capability. They don’t just target their enemies but their allies too. This is the most grotesque and despicable extortion leveled against the whole world
stickly@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
They’re two sides of the same coin and not functionally much different. In a world with nuclear weapons everyone must have a “last resort” strategy like this: the perception of the destruction of the state triggers nuclear annihilation (against anyone/everyone). The only other theorized response is to voluntarily roll over and die so humanity can live, and nobody with nukes is going to admit to that.
In a real scenario you could never verify if the first launch was from a credible threat retaliation or not. Even if you could, first strike vs retaliatory is cold comfort when everyone is starving in a nuclear winter. It’s not worth getting upset over a wikipedia article with a bunch of journalist quotes and opinion pieces. We’ve known about MAD since 1962.
Transform2942@lemmy.ml 2 hours ago
So your whole argument is that in a nuclear exchange it could be hard in practice to identify the initial aggressor, therefore there is no meaningful difference between a nuclear first strike and a nuclear second strike? Is that what you are saying?
stickly@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Yes it would be damn near impossible because basically all communication would be dead as fast as it happens and any belligerents wouldn’t be in any shape to give convincing evidence (assuming they survive and it doesn’t trigger a worldwide exchange).
If two countries are at the brink anything can happen: a radar blip, a failed first launch, fog of war, equipment malfunction, etc… Nobody’s official policy is “we’ll nuke anyone for any reason”, they always claim self preservation/retaliation. If a conventional war with Iran goes poorly it would be a rapid flurry of Israel maybe launches or threatens to launch => China (or whoever) retaliates => USA (or whoever) counters => comms are disrupted or locked down => troops are mobilized etc…
The same events could be true of a purported dead man switch system: can anyone prove that the switch was improperly triggered? Does it matter now that most people involved are ashes?
It would be over in about an hour or two and would take decades to properly reconstruct, if ever. Every state would jump at the chance to frame the tragedy in their favorite light and you personally will never ever know the truth.
In that light it doesn’t make any sense to worry about speculation or opinion pieces or rumors. There never will be a way to prove or disprove theoretical apocalyptic policies. There are a billion reasons to criticize Israel and hate Zionists but this isn’t much better than a puff piece.
Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
They target “allies” if they’re not "ally"ing hard enough. Threatening the world to get what they want