EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • Imperor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The US and the USSR engaged in a race to have the most nukes. After the fall of the Sowjet Union international treaties were put in place to reduce the number of nukes in both east and west.

    Don’t quote me, but if I remember correctly, at the height of the cold war, both sides had more than 12.000 nukes each.

    Humanity had enough fire power to delete the entire globe roughly 40x over then. Why? Because bigger is better.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s dumb. They didn’t do it just for shits and giggles. They did it because in a nuclear exchange, you only get one shot so you need to overwhelm your opponent’s defenses.