Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
is your objection something like the development of bunker busters and whatnot?
it's always hard to tell because we aren't a forum for mind readers
His objection is probably based on the string of terrible assertions Phill condensed into one paragraph of complete wrongness.
For example, it doesn't take a genius to realize that complicated systems with rockets, electronics, explosive materials, and other advanced technologies do in fact have a limited design life, both for maintainability and reliability reasons and also due to technology developments.
Did you really need ikes to point out that it is dumb to say 40-year old systems will be "just as functional" in 30 years as a newer system? You don't have to be a mind reader to lol at that.
And what does "This isnt like smartphones where there are new higher resolution displays every year" really mean? There have been developments in missile countermeasures over the decades, and yes a 40-year old system is not as good as a 10-year old system due to technology advances. Why wouldn't that be the case? Are nukes the only technology in the world that doesn't degrade nor advance?
Also, the systems to deliver nuclear weapons have changed over the years, too. New bombers, subs, and fighters in the future will require new weapons for reasons such as different internal configurations and delivery concepts, newer electronic and communication systems, etc.
I'm not arguing for more nuclear weapons, by the way. But the Phill's quote as posted by ikes is certainly worthy of this thread.