It’s a key question in the debate over the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review:
Does adding a couple of low-yield weapons to each of America’s ballistic missile submarines make the U.S. safer, or move the U.S. closer to nuclear war?
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes a low-yield option that doesn’t rely on an airplane having to penetrate enemy air defenses increases deterrence, and therefore lowers the risk of miscalculation, especially by the Russians.
It’s a perfectly logical argument, but it’s one that arms reduction advocates and skeptical members of Congress have a hard time accepting.
More @ Washington Examiner
... safer, or move the U.S. closer to nuclear war?
ReplyDeleteThat's not an either-or question. WINNING a nuclear war makes us safer. Enemies who fear anihilation don't mess with us. The problem with any size nuke is that it's a nuke, so we will never use it against people. We are far too squeamish for that and have been for decades.
--genericviews
we will never use it against people.
DeleteI can't imagine an instance where we wouldn't retaliate if hit first, but if you mean a city that has no military capability then that makes sense.