The New York City office of emergency management released a nuclear attack prparedness video.
Completely laughable.
The last advice is moronic.
Make sure to sign up for alerts on your cellphone.
Can find the video in an article on halturnerradioshow.com.
IF a nuke were to detonate over NYC, game over, much less following that dumb advice.
And don't forget to wash behind the ears!
Not on MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. The goal is annihilation. They cannot prevent, submarines, supersonic bombers, dead man's switches, and mobile launchers. Sure there is some cover and assumed prevention. Guidance and increasing capability. Until it's outpaced by hypersonics. Instead it's density, and infrastructure. Or ideally such a zero, there is nothing left to be in command of. A restart resetting the planet. Making it a notion of strict deterrent. Except it is becoming out the window when ding ding ding they're faster popping up everywhere and becoming adopted. Is this deterrence, or essentially MAD?
The grid is the first thing launched at, communications and satellites. Then it's the command structure, capitals, and large population centers, disabling supply lines, and obviously large military installations, and airports, and ports. But in that spread it's sooner covering density and infrastructure. Where multiple warheads are fired from the same launch vehicles. Example there are single launched nukes which can host about 25 warheads, what is that radius, 500-1000 miles? What is the radius of let's suggest it hosting 5. They break off blasting an area. It's blanket damage. Give a flying fuck. The dust has hit your presumed green zone regardless. No, there is no, first thing. But there is speculation.
In MAD which is the current deterrence doctrine. It effectively is still a zero. Despite modern tactical debates of scenarios like proxies and specifically guided at direct installations. Effectively it is debating if victory is achievable. First strike, context, and definitions. Or if their use cascades into total annihilation.
You think they're stupid to sabotage themselves like that?
What are you babbling about? It's what supposedly deters nuclear war. Complete annihilation. You're thinking of tactical nukes. Not a nuclear exchange. Where okay. A tactical nuke seeks an achievable victory. A nuclear exchange seeks to destroy an enemy. Hence the deterrence doctrine is called, again that buzzword, or adopted phrase; Mutually assured destruction. It's also why no tactical nukes have been deployed in combat yet.
But we're talking about deep bunkers and access to locations which supposedly can survive nuclear war. The problem is there's nothing left to be in command of. They'll probably just become cannibals anyway. Love, Sex, and Robots.
You don't need to see farther that a Nuclear War is incredibly inefficient and borderline suicidal.
Precisely. You've understood it. MAD.
However there will always be tactical nukes. Because of the asteroids.
But there will always be the what if you have achieved victory. Let's suggest you're suicidal to achieve it. What is victory today. Profit. But what if. You have the resources and or location to ride out a planetary reset. Who needs population? You wanted to Georgia Guidestones. Ride out Nuclear winter. Or you're a crazy terrorist with a briefcase? Or just another rogue cunt willing to bring on some other prophecy?
With the increasing armament brings the increasing risk. Until they're almost becoming deployed, or soon could be.