Angry Planet
Matthew Gault and Jason Fields
Podcast
Episodes
Listen, download, subscribe
How Many Nukes Does It Take to Win a War? (Trick Question)
Listen to this episode commercial free at https://angryplanetpod.com The world is living with a Cold War hangover. The logic of deterrence, which dominates the minds of the people who plan nuclear wars, means that America must have enough nuclear weapons to credibly threaten to destroy the world should someone launch nukes at it. That thinking led to a world with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and that was just when the U.S. had the Soviet Union to think about. Now it’s facing the twin threats of Russia and China. Does that mean America needs twice the nukes to handle twice the threats? Some in the Pentagon seem to think so, and the world is embarking on a radical and expensive nuclear build up the likes of which it hasn’t seen in a generation. What if there’s another way? James Acton is here to pitch us on a world where Optimal Deterrence does not mean spending trillions of dollars on new world-ending weapons just to make sure everyone else doesn’t use theirs. Acton is a co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program and the author of a new article that outlines the 21st century nuclear arms race and a new plan to stop it. Podcasting from an iPhone in a closetThe apocryphal camera lens storyThe nuclear teaseWhat are nuclear weapons pointed at?How to win a three-way nuclear warThe dread logic of counterforce targetingTrump’s nuclear reticenceHow many nukes are there anyway?How to spend a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons upgradesActon’s big idea“I don’t think we lose much by ceasing to target an adversary’s nuclear forces.”“It doesn’t matter if they believe it or not.” Optimal Deterrence Russia’s nuclear torpedo Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/warcollege. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Angry Planet RSS Feed
