Someone make this make sense. If the USA (and arguably Russia) already has weapons like MOAB, why would they need "smaller" nuclear weapons? You either want to level a fucking a city with one blast, or several smaller ones, and, ideally, you want either one of those choices to cost as least as possible.
How is this not massive propagandizing to neuter any objection to a nuclear countermeasure?
small "tactical" nukes have been around for generations, they're just talking about them again because they know the public is uneducated, and they're an easy way to make nukes seem "sensible."
Someone make this make sense. If the USA (and arguably Russia) already has weapons like MOAB, why would they need "smaller" nuclear weapons? You either want to level a fucking a city with one blast, or several smaller ones, and, ideally, you want either one of those choices to cost as least as possible.
How is this not massive propagandizing to neuter any objection to a nuclear countermeasure?
Why would they want that? They want to shovel as much money as possible into MIC contractors
small "tactical" nukes have been around for generations, they're just talking about them again because they know the public is uneducated, and they're an easy way to make nukes seem "sensible."
Destroying enforced military positions would be the political answer besides normalization of their use.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod