you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Seems to me, like there is EXTREMELY, next to zero, or perhaps zero reason to ever HAVE to use a nuke. Nuke's should be a defensive deterrent, not a first choice. I'm sure the military has plenty of other options.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.

    The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.

    The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    If you are not ready to use a nuke ever, it stops being a deterrent. Game theory.

    But this situation is not the kind where a nuke is used as a deterrent. If Israel was saying they're sorry and asking for ceasefire, while Iranians would be absolutely destroying what remains of it and not listening, then yes.

    Or, if Iran had a nuke and Israelis were succeeding in destroying Iran.

    But neither are true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Oh honey, read some of the norbert weiner type of nuke cult guys, and their Soviet counterparts.

    This is a rabbit hole nobody wants anybody to ho down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments