|
|
|
|
|
|
by casefields
68 days ago
|
|
|
This is called paltering, which is lying telling by telling the truth. The delivery systems are included when coming up with that number. So all those submarines, bombers, and ICBMs are also counted. All 3 systems of course are still valuable and useful without nuclear weapons. |
|
|
1. ICBMs. I question your claim that these are "of course" valuable without nuclear payloads.
No ICBM has even been used in war (there's a questionable case of Russia using an experimental missile in 2024 in Ukraine). Certainly, without nuclear payloads, they would be a lot less valuable.
2. Submarines, bombers. Yes, these general categories of vehicles have military value beyond delivering nuclear weapons.
The specific ones that are most likely to be used for delivering nuclear weapons were developed and built for this specific purpose, often at extremely high cost (with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit as a specific example).
These delivery systems for nuclear weapons wouldn't have been built in such great numbers and at such great cost if not for their intended purpose of delivering nuclear weapons.