Any /k/fags here?
If you were the dictator of a small country, would you choose to
1. spend money on constructing nuclear- and EMP-resistant infrastructure and nuclear bunkers for your citizenry, or
2. spend money on constructing nuclear bombs and nuclear bomb delivery devices?
I would choose the first option, since nuclear bombs are completely useless. You can't actually use them against anyone without everyone else pissing their pants and blowing you up in response, upon which all your citizens are dead and your country will be gone. Whereas if you have truly effective nuclear bunkers and radiation migitation measures, you will be able to survive if some other (((country))) attacks you, which is ultimately more important than mutually assured destruction.
Against militarily "powerful" countries like the USA, propaganda is extremely effective, more so than nuclear weapons ask the jews. Their democratic system makes it easy to sabotage their government through the use of propaganda, and their citizens are highly divided in a political sense.
I would choose inventing my own nukes. As you said, you can't use them, but when you have nukes nobody can use their nukes against you, so you don't need to waste money on defensive infrastructure.
Actually, when you have a nuclear arsenal, nobody can invade you (too hard) so it is the best defense against any type of military transgression, while bunkers only protect against some forms of aggression.
What is a /k/?
I'd choose option two for the obvious reasoning that owning nuclear weapons deter others using their nuclear weapons on you. Option one, I think, is unrealistic. What does nuclear-resistant infrastructure even look like?
>>7483 >when you have nukes nobody can use their nukes against you
I wouldn't rely on it. Israel, just as one example, has the samson option, which means they will use their nukes on any country that poses a serious threat. And if your defence policy revolves around not pissing off israel, then it's a shitty one.
>Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow -- it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away -- unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans -- have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
>t. (((Ron Rosenbaum)))
>>7484 >What does nuclear-resistant infrastructure even look like?
Obviously you can't make anything that survives a direct nuclear hit. So you just spread stuff out enough that it isn't worth attacking. For example, instead of 3 factories next to each other in a city, have one factory here, another factory 20km away, another factory 20km away from both of those, each of them having machinery which isn't effected by EMP, and located a reasonable distance away from any city. Instead of dropping a bomb on a city and destroying everything, they would have to use 3 separate bombs to destroy all your factories.
Nukes are no longer worth it to attack your factories, which means that enemies will have to resort to conventional weapons and those are easier to defend against.
Of course, this would be less efficient due to the transportation required to shuttle resources between locations, but depending on your threat model this might be a valid approach.
Another example is to discourage large cities and towns and encourage rural living. Cities tend to breed degeneracy, anyway. For example if I were living in the countryside I wouldn't be killed by a direct nuclear blast and would probably be far enough away from ground zero that the radiation levels would be manageable.
And if you are a country without population hotspots that tend to be more productive, you won't have enough money to even fend of a land invasion of the shittiest of your neighbors.
Your concept of nuclear-resistant infrastructure misses the concept of opportunity cost completely.
>>7486 Sounds expensive. If I were attacking such a country with nuclear weapons, I'd aim for powerstations, mineral or oil deposits, or whatever it is that those three sparsely seperated factories commonly rely upon. A nuclear-resistant country is simply infeasible.
One thing to consider is that tactical nukes or ICBMs probably require more research than rural structuring of the country and probably even bunkers.
And if your country is relatively immune to the nuclear threat, you can freely piss off israel
>>7482 >Not breeding niggers in your country to send them off to first world countries to gain a comparative advantage
You would probably even get low interest loans or direct grants from (((him))) for this
>>7489 Bunkers are conceptually much simpler. They're just a shit ton of concrete, lead, bricks and food/water supplies combined with a sewage system and air/water filtration/circulation, plus a few off the shelf parts such as geiger counters, batteries, generators etc. I could probably make one myself if I had enough money, whereas a nuclear bomb, not so much. Of course, none of this can survive a direct hit unless it's buried 10km underground, it just protects you from some of the radiation.
I also did some research to find out whether a nuke can make the air itself radioactive, and it turns out that it doesn't, only the dust is radioactive so conventional air filters will work.
I think the ultimate answer to OP's question is to do both, but get your defenses ready before you develop your nukes (and possibly piss off other countries who might attack you). A country with only defensive capabilities is a dead one, and so is one with only offensive capabilities.
>>7484 >not knowing what /k/ is
where do you come from
>>7490 >Not being a nigger and going directly to a first world country to rape their women, genocide them, and steal their resources while doing so
That is the most effective way to destroy countries.
>>7491 >A country with only defensive capabilities is a dead one, and so is one with only offensive capabilities.
If somebody decides to nuke your petty dictatorship you are fucked no matter what. Even if you manage to save some chunk of your population, you infrastructure will be gone and what is left will be easy picking.
So a purely offensive is the way to go.
>>7493 >If somebody decides to nuke your petty dictatorship you are fucked no matter what. Even if you manage to save some chunk of your population, you infrastructure will be gone and what is left will be easy picking.
What's even the point of nukeing a country to dust? Who'd want to control a country like that? I'm unironically starting to think humanity is getting too smart to do that. There's no way to guarantee a few nukes to big cities isn't gonna snowball into a full-scale nuclear war.
>inb4 in the future rare earths are such an important resource, that superpowers decided it is beneficial to nuke countries that posess them, and then only use the country for mining rare earths
I mean it's not impossible. Someone could write a book about that
Daily reminder that nuclear weapons are paper tigers. Based Mao, really.
>The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the U.S. reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't. Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by the people, not by one or two new types of weapon.
>Wasn't Hitler a paper tiger? Wasn't he overthrown?
>>7542 picture is kind of useless without the legend. Teal means they used to have nukes but lost them. Zoom in to see the little yellow "we totally don't have nukes guize".
>>7481 Countries with nukes don't get invaded. That's why dictators love them. It's also why the USA is so anal about any country that wants to build them. If Iraq had nukes, nobody would have touched it.
>>7481 I'd build the bunkers and use suicide bombers instead of nukes. We (humanity) have a good idea of how to handle nukes, but we can't yet handle suicide bombers.
>>7584 Good idea. Suicide bombers cause societal problems, such as 30 year old harpies calling to BAN ALL THE THINGS to "prevent" people from using bombs and weapons.
>>7587 India, Pakistan, China, Russia sometimes fight each other on their borders, but the conflicts didn't develop into wars since all of them afraid of nuclear wars.
Even U.S. doesn't want a nuclear war with North Korea as North Korea has nukes and ICBM and SLBM. If U.S. could destroy all ICBM, it is impossible to destroy all SLBM.
Any /k/fags here?
If you were the dictator of a small country, would you choose to
1. spend money on constructing nuclear- and EMP-resistant infrastructure and nuclear bunkers for your citizenry, or
2. spend money on constructing nuclear bombs and nuclear bomb delivery devices?
I would choose the first option, since nuclear bombs are completely useless. You can't actually use them against anyone without everyone else pissing their pants and blowing you up in response, upon which all your citizens are dead and your country will be gone. Whereas if you have truly effective nuclear bunkers and radiation migitation measures, you will be able to survive if some other (((country))) attacks you, which is ultimately more important than mutually assured destruction.
Against militarily "powerful" countries like the USA, propaganda is extremely effective, more so than nuclear weapons ask the jews. Their democratic system makes it easy to sabotage their government through the use of propaganda, and their citizens are highly divided in a political sense.