[Ajakks]

MAD is actually a myth - especially when it was invented in the 60s, its more so now, in theory, but in all practical sense - nobody can use the massive nukes, they would prolly melt the polar ice and screw the climate for sure... but, having them means something else: nobody without an equivalent number can actually engage with you.

Which is why tactical nukes will be used in the future - likely by the US, Russia, or later on, maybe China. The British and French only have enough if we support them - India and Pakistan hardly have enough for each other...

Essentially - if we did take out say half a city somewhere and Russia doesnt go to their "final at bat" forever, for some country that isn't Russia - nobody else will attack us directly either bc they can't destroy our capacity to entirely remove them from existing.

China would want to fire back - but do you waste a billion people to make your enemy really, really angry and determined to use all of their remaining capabilities - which is more than everyone else (cept Russia), with just what is outside of the US in subs...

I'm not actually joking here - trading a part of an iconic city, to be taught an unwanted lesson, is superior to losing all the skylines of all the cities and learning no more lessons ever.

That modern understanding is actually entirely different than Mao originally approached an exchange - he said he wasn't worried - bc China has enough people and cities.

This is the real reason America has so many - bc with our large sprawled out country and global distribution of nuclear capabilities - we will always be the last one pushing red buttons. That is all that matters in an actual nuclear war/exchange - being the last one left IS Winning.

I wont explain more, bc it clearly is uncomfortable to people, but essentially, if the US and Russia were to "allow" each other to use tactical nukes (with rules, they set for each other) - like my example with Kiev (which would accomplish sooo many things - I wont elaborate further in case the Pentagon has somehow that) - with that one move, condoning "limited tactical nukes" bc they are "so weak" compared to the "real ones" - we would immediately return to a bipolar world split between the US and Russia.

All those conversations about the end of NATO would immediately stop, for example.

[peyton]

We’ve used nuclear weapons before when it made sense and we’ll use them again when it makes sense. Tactical nuclear weapons have downsides and generally don’t make much sense. Hitting population centers works.

[Ajakks]

In theory, these new "tactical" systems are better able to engage military targets. In practice, a 500-kiloton payload can also be used to blanket a wide area with total destruction.

Nagasaki was 21 kilotons, which means an average 500 kt MIRV warhead carries the energy equivalent of roughly two dozen individual Nagasaki sized detonations.

They can easily be used on population centers. The word "tactical" is more like a rebranding of nuclear weapons.