this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
385 points (93.8% liked)

World News

38708 readers
2540 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Intercontinental nukes basically can't be shot down. This is because both sides can launch hundreds of rockets, each carrying multiple very small warheads. It's basically impossible to intercept.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But can you not also just scale up the defense systems in parallel with the ballistic missiles carrying warheads? If we can expend billions for the construction of thousands of intercontinental missiles, can we then not also build tens of thousands of interceptors, maybe a handful for each potential incoming nuke?

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

This isn't a new idea, it's been around sinde Reagan, and the consensus is that it's just non-viable.