I know nukes are terrifying and cause lasting environmental damage, but back then and even now, conventional warfare still dominates if you want to control territory. Nuclear weapons are a little overrated in their full effects honestly.
Nukes are good at horrifying surprise attacks. They're terrorism weapons. If your goal is winning a war and holding territory, you're still going to use artillery, airplanes, troops, and drones.
The scary part of nukes is when your opponent also has nukes, so is also able to do sudden nightmare attacks you can't expect or defend against. Nukes also make everyone on earth hate you. They have a political cost of making you seem untrustworthy or insane.
:blob-no-thoughts: well according the my playthrough of civ 5 when i turned entirety of australia into a nuclear wasteland no-one cared so honestly the science is still trying to figure it out
your liberal co-worker who wants to nuke china & russia really badly, blurts out during a watercooler conversation
I know nukes are terrifying and cause lasting environmental damage, but back then and even now, conventional warfare still dominates if you want to control territory. Nuclear weapons are a little overrated in their full effects honestly.
Nukes are good at horrifying surprise attacks. They're terrorism weapons. If your goal is winning a war and holding territory, you're still going to use artillery, airplanes, troops, and drones.
The scary part of nukes is when your opponent also has nukes, so is also able to do sudden nightmare attacks you can't expect or defend against. Nukes also make everyone on earth hate you. They have a political cost of making you seem untrustworthy or insane.
:blob-no-thoughts: well according the my playthrough of civ 5 when i turned entirety of australia into a nuclear wasteland no-one cared so honestly the science is still trying to figure it out
your liberal co-worker who wants to nuke china & russia really badly, blurts out during a watercooler conversation