|
|
|
|
|
|
by cryptonector
3017 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, quite. There's no tactical or even strategic value to this other than as a terror-based deterrent. Of course, all nuclear deterrence is terror-based to some degree, but weapons that can only really be meant to attack populations are more terrible than ones meant to attack military targets. We saw this back during the height of the Cold War, where first very high-yield weapons were deployed due to lack of sufficient accuracy, then later these were replaced with lower-yield weapons as accuracy increased. These UUVs are a desperate move to make up for lower capability in other parts of the Russian deterrence strategy. They're scary indeed. |
|
|
Of course. It's explicitly a second-strike weapon: if it is ever actually used, it has already failed in its mission.