New answers tagged

-3

Since 2000, off the top of my head US: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen (covert support for Saudi war and campaign of mass starvation), Iran (post JCPOA unauthorized sanctions, petroleum blockade, assassination of a prominent leader, stated goal of regime change), China (support of HK independence, economic warfare, pressured Canada to arrest ...


4

I would add something I didn't see in the other answers, namely Russia's concerns regarding the launching systems. As per the Russian media and official releases (examples below), Russia holds the position that the launching systems for the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile can be actually used to launch Tomahawk missiles. If this were the case, then the anti-...


-1

Russia's best deterrent to being subject to a nuclear attack is the threat of an equally deadly counterattack. It is that balanced threat that has likely prevented all out war between the US and Russia (and the former USSR) for the past several decades. If the US were to have an effective defense against a counterattack, then the balance is gone. The US ...


4

It's not possible to cleanly divide military technology into "offensive" and "defensive". There's the saying "the best defense is a good offense", but a good defense can also be a good offense. For instance, bullet proof vests may seem to be defensive devices, but how many security guards, versus bank robbers, wear them? There ...


64

The logic behind nuclear peace is mutually assured destruction: Anyone who uses nuclear weapons will also be destroyed by the counter-strike. As long as there are multiple nuclear powers who all have the capability to destroy each other with a nuclear second strike after one of them performed a nuclear first strike, none of them will dare. But if one actor ...


19

In much simpler terms (eschewing more complex reasoning about 2nd strikes etc. specific to nuclear weapons): being able to hit your enemy without them being able to hit you back is a good recipe for winning a war. It's why the US (and in fact anyone else who can) pursues technological superiority, including in defensive tech, be it tank armor, CIWS, stealth ...


66

In 1914 the defensive technology (trenches, machine guns) was more effective than the offensive (infantry charge). It lead to quagmire and stalemate. Clearly, the effective defence did not prevent war. The concern of Russia is that if there is an effective defence against a nuclear counter-strike, then the cost of launching a pre-emptive strike is much ...


Top 50 recent answers are included