spectrvm: (Default)
[personal profile] spectrvm
What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p30/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Вывод только один - США должны быть уничтожены. Мы должны нажать на кнопку первыми. Если миру суждено сгореть, то пусть он сгорит вместе с Америкой а не без нее.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

spectrvm: (Default)
spectrvm

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 25 June 2025 09:17
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios