No they never went away did they. They never went away. We just forgot about them for a while. But now they’re back again, front and centre.

Like a woman it seems we cannot live with them and we cannot live without them.

Well we can live with them but it’s MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. But is MAD a sane military policy?

I mean they cannot be used because its MAD.-The catastrophe too great. But we cannot get rid of them because that would leave our side defenceless.

That’s the dilemma. That is what I am really cunting. The ‘Catch 22’ situation that we are in.

But you know by the Law of Probability over time they will be used. If we keep them eventually they will be used. So (the argument goes) we have to Unilaterally Disarm. It is our moral duty to do this.

But straight away you think realistically that is so reckless if the other side doesn’t give theirs up.

Round and round it goes…see.

Really what we have to do is get rid of ‘the other side’ so that they become redundant. But once again is that realistic given human nature?

There has been much talk of using ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ in this present conflict. But if you read the literature that is another strategic ‘rabbit hole’ of contradictory thinking.

For If they drop a tactical nuclear bomb do we respond in kind ourselves? Or do we respond with conventional weapons? But that would show weakness on our part.

Wouldn’t it?

But If we respond with a nuclear bomb the escalation to oblivion starts.

Doesn’t it?

My head hurts…

Nominated by: Miles Plastic

(More info on the subject here. Day Admin – Britannica Link )