Various antiwar Influencers, not least Michael Cernovich, have been touting Ann(i)e Jacobsen. As one who lived through the red-giant phase of the Cold War, I got the feeling that somebody who knows what they are talking about should handle this one. Maybe Jacobsen knows what she's talking about, too.
First up: Reddit doesn't like her book. We also have Matthew Petti and (on that "hair trigger" meme) Peter Huessy. It looks as if Jacobsen, in fact, is less-versed on the topic than was... Stanley Kubrick. At least Jacobsen isn't telling us to abandon the space programme like some idiots.
I think one issue we have in the 2020s, or really in the 1980s, besides the same damn Ministry songs is the prospect of an efficient and small warhead. It would inflict about the fifteen metric-kilotons of a Hiroshima but without wasting so much munition. That is: it would be more-easily fireable and would also not spill so much fallout. We can assume this 2022 paper still holds up.
Limited nuclear war might become more of an invasion-repellent application than an intercontinental ballistic opportunity. Would we train ICBMs on Russia if it delivered 15 kT unto some Azov-Battalion base... in internationally-recognised Russian territory? I wonder.
More likely, it breaks the taboo. Extension to civil wars become possible; then, to border wars... like Pakistan/Taliban. As that happens, think: For All Time.
On the plus side, America could launch those Orions from Greenland; we're already polar-orbiting on chemicals.
No comments:
Post a Comment