Whats the point of funding a conventional army when nuclear bombs would Annihilate them?

What’s the point of funding a conventional army when nuclear bombs would Annihilate them?

>b-but we need to fight religious zealots 13000 miles away.
No you dont

All you need is police + nuclear bombs and a delivery system

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear genocide is not a defense policy.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody would invade a country with atomic land mines on there border and nuclear missles aimed at their enemies major cities

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >sends just one tank
        >the mine would cause more damage so it doesn't explodes
        >repeat
        >u dead homie

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The mines would explode when the weight limit is triggered. This would also send a signal to launch a nuclear barrage in the direction the tank came from

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >sends a second tank a few hours later
            >repeat

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So, for home defence, have you rigged your entire house to explode, killing yourself and family? It would work as a deterrant against your neighbours, but what about a crackhead who doesnt give a frick?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Works for every country that's tried it
      >Russia
      >China
      >Iran
      >North Korea
      >USA

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    .t MacArthur

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Proportionality and collateral damage.
    A nuke is useless for home defense.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A nuke is useless for home defense.
      You just lack balls.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    defense and deterrence are two different, albeit deeply related, things - strategies for the former are generally related to capacities that create the latter as a side-effect, so to maintain the latter you need to be able to show you can perform the former.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody doubts North Korea after there tests

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A country's defense range from "frown disapprovingly" to "unleash nuclear armageddon". But if those are your only two options you're going to be fricked by anyone who moderates their actions to make the nuclear option impractical

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Like what actions? North America can be entirely self suffiy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >North America can be entirely self suffiy

        If you wanna reduce living stnadards to third world levels for a generation or two while chasing after that goal, sure. Makes no fricking sense in practice. Isolationism was a moronic idea a hundred years ago and it's only gotten more moronic with every year since.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If i want my neighbor's dog to sop shitting on my lawn, I don't burn down his house and salt the earth it was built on...My wife is expecting them to bring the buns for our memorial day cookout.
    >which is to say....
    A nuke is the best way to kill everything in a given radius, but often times you just want someone to chill the frick out and bend to your will without interrupting the flow of trade.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You could detonate small yield dirty bombs over the dogs food supply

      >sends a second tank a few hours later
      >repeat

      No soldier would be willing to drive into an irradiated nuclear wasteland while knowing everyone he cares about is dead

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cold war tanks are designed to do exactly that.
        >NBC protection

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          A gas tank doesn’t last forever and there would be no supply chain left

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >t room temperature iq

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The temperature would be a lot higher following a nuclear detonation

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes are nothing burgers. Most nations couldn't launch one without the possibility of nuclear retaliation. The current war in ukraine makes this obvious. Both sides, USA and Russia, have nukes but have spent a year fighting a bitter conventional war.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If Ukraine has nukes aimed at Moscow the war would have never happened

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Both sides, USA and Russia, have nukes but have spent a year fighting a bitter conventional war.
      I think only one side has spent a year doing that.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The nuclear bombs are not very cost effective when it comes to oppressing your own people.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is we have open borders and the enemy is already within.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ITT, OP is a brainlet who doesn't understand that war is but a means to an end, and that not every end can be achieved through mindless mass killing.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The enemy cannot deploy nuclear weapons if you take over his country

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The "problem" with nukes being your only defence is that you have no way to signal that you will use them. Are you going to use them because you didn't get favourable conditions in trade negotiations? Are you going to use them because some crazed terrorist from halfway across the world killed 3 people in your country? Just think about it logically, how can nukes be your ONLY option geopolitically and militarily? Now if you're a nation like the UK or France nukes are just the insurance policy, you've still got a strong military for traditional influence and hard power. You can defend your own borders with conventional means against neighbouring nations, etc. The nukes are just there to keep other nuclear powers from nuking you and to keep any conventional war to at most border disputes or proxy wars, as a true threat to the homeland could result in nukes.

    So again, you can't reasonably survive JUST on nukes alone. It's a dumb empty threat.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You can settle trade disputes with diplomacy. Trump did it with China and no shots were fried. Police can deal with terrorists. A non nuclear power sailing across the seas to invade America would be worth of a nuclear holocaust

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Trump did it with China and no shots were fried
        Yeah because the US fricking military exists, do you think china would've given a frick if the US didn't have the largest/best navy, naval air force, and regular air forces in the world. Like sure, we ALSO have nukes, but that isn't the situation as OP described, OP says you've got nuke missiles, and nuke mines on the boarders, that's a dog shit horrible plan and you have ZERO negotiation power because ALL YOU CAN EVER DO IS NUKE.

        If I tell you to frick off I'm gonna rail you into the ass on trade deals, all you can EVER DO is nuke me. That's it. Good fricking job moron, nuke me and I'll nuke you back and we both die.

        So again, you can never use it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          America wouldn’t need to rely on trade deals . Everything they need can be found in America and Canada. Canada is a push over that would fall to a swat team

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >what homeschooling does to a mf

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >there's either total peace or global thermonuclear war, no nuance!
    t. NATO circa 1955

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Someone has to guard and maintain the bombs.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If you have time this video goes over why that is not such a good idea and why the US abandon the idea in the 60s.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *