Next Question Batch

[avatar (Alistair Young)]

Comments migrated from WordPress:

@Scott <scott.kenny@gmail.com> on 2018-08-15 01:21:28 wrote

I suppose I should actually comment on this blog, as much time as I’ve spent reading it… :embarrassed:

“Countervalue” in nuclear strategy partially comes from the fact that the weapons capable of doing a second strike (bombers and submarine-launched missiles) were generally incapable of the accuracy required for hitting “counterforce” targets like military command-and-control centers. By the time the Trident II missile was developed, however, the submarines were capable of hitting C&C bunkers or missile silos. (read wikipedia on the Trident missiles for more details)

It also partially comes from the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, that neither side will be able to win a conflict that does go nuclear.

Why do I know this? Well, part of it is from my International Relations class. The other part is from being a sailor on a US missile submarine.