6 ms·
This assumes a few things: 1) Accidents or technical failures don't happen (false) 2) Nuclear weapons are de facto controlled by political systems (false) 3)
by estearum 3d ago
This assumes a few things:
1) Accidents or technical failures don't happen (false)
2) Nuclear weapons are de facto controlled by political systems (false)
3) Nuclear states' prior security agreements are still guaranteed by said nuclear states (false)
4) No nuclear state currently fears for its existence (false)
- greenavocado 3d agoIt absolutely does not assume anything about being controlled by political systems. Being controlled by the respective militaries is sufficient for the arguments to hold water.
- estearum 3d agoFirst, all of the prior assumptions (and then many more) need to be true. So no, the argument does not hold water. Second, you are conflating political with civilian in my prior comment. A military system that controls nukes is still a political system. The military itself is a political invention. I am drawing this distinction not on military vs civilian boundaries but on system versus individual. The reality is that as a functional necessity of having nuclear deterrence, there is not a small number of red buttons controlled by a small number of people. There are countless red buttons controlled - ultimately - by whatever low level service member is on duty at this particular moment.