The US Department of Defense is formulating a new nuclear strategy for the US, which emphasizes the possibility of using short-range tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a regional war against China or Russia, NBC reported today (Wednesday). The emerging plan will change the nuclear response options that will be presented to the President of the United States during a crisis.According to the report, the purpose of the new strategy is to prevent a conventional war from escalating into a nuclear conflict, and to deny the US's adversary any possible advantage in the event of such a conflict. The strategy mainly focuses on possible regional conflicts with Russia and China, which Washington sees as its main nuclear rivals.The new program is led by Elbridge Colby, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy Affairs and one of the most influential figures in the Pentagon. Colby advocates giving a greater role to tactical nuclear weapons, thereby deviating from the current approach, which relies primarily on long-range strategic systems designed to destroy the enemy's nuclear forces.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pentagon-drafts-new-nuclear-strategy-weighing-tactical-weapons-against-russia-china/ar-AA29t92Z
>>540383214Good idea. Tactical nukes would be the only way to end direct conflicts with China or Russia quickly. No way we could fight a 6 month war with them, when we can barely fight a 4-5 month war with Iran.
>>540383214>wasted all missiles destroying cave entrances that got cleared in less than 24 hours >welp gotta nuke them>FOR ISRAEL YEE HAW
>tfw they need to put some in Leafland>they don't knowBurger-bros...It's So So Over.
>>540383214>the purpose of the new strategy is to prevent a conventional war from escalating into a nuclear conflictBy escalating it into a nuclear conflict. Fucking rat traps are better designed than whatever we’re all caught in.
>>540383214So in essence they no longer have a conventional deterrent because orange man used up all the stockpiles against Iran
>>540383539>>540383695>>540383838there is no way trump is crazy enough to start using nuclear weapon ( assuming they exist )
>>540384473That’s just what we need, him using them to manipulate the markets. Lmao
>>540383695maybe next time avoid installing a fox news host as your secretary of defense
>>540383214What if Russia and China use tactical nukes in turn?
>>540383214>the whole small nuke thing again>warhead fits on tomahawk cylinder>__ destroyers become nuke capable (you can do the math)What's different now, however, is that Mr. Colby's idea no longer settles cases. There was a time when it did, but that time is past.. In the modern world, today's world, there is no surrender. I'll say that again. In the modern world, the unmanned autonomous long range world, there is no concept of surrender.. Policy doesn't understand that.. There is surrender to fucking nothing, in today's world. Nothing. Nothing is ever resolved. That's why this make a deal thing is misplaced and ineffective.. You see, when the victor wants not to vanquish the enemy, surrender can't be understood as a concept.. It's like, what'd you mean, give up?.. Putin and Trump together, have this problem.. The Ukraine of today and the Iran of today, will never surrender. Ever. Never. There is no end to the war that's what you don't understand. So, unfortunately, that's why Mr. Colby will be out-voted but not for the reason you think. It's because a small nuke is useless. Only a massive nuke is useful. And again, that's because the modern world does not have a concept of surrender. Nor will they
>>540385523Well, in that case USA is far enough outside of range of tac nukes. Sucks to be european or korean/japanese though.
>>540383539lol migger. you're in a satanic death cult
>>540384473ok faggot
>>540383214>the purpose of the new strategy is to prevent a conventional war from escalating into a nuclear conflict>We need to nuke China to prevent a nuclear exchange>>540383539>Tactical nukes would be the only way to end direct conflicts with China or Russia quickly.We can't fight a missile conflict against Russia or China, because we are outmatched technologically and industrially. Therefore we should fight a higher stakes missile conflict with Russia and China. This will make us win.>>540387244>Russia and China can't nuke AmericaIncorrect.
>>540385523>t-they can't do that!That shit is hysteria. They can't produce shit but want to wage wars, nukes is probably what AI told them to use (because AI was prompted to figure out the solution for something that cannot be realistically resolved)
>>540388007>Incorrect.The question was about tactical nukes. Using those in america requires either breaching the US airspace, approaching by the sea, or convincing some country near USA to allow setting up nukes there, which would likely end badly for the country in question.
