• Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    In the US? I don’t think people would give a shit honestly. The libs might have a big protest, that’s it

    Edit: for like a tactical nuke on the buried facility or sth. Obviously if they nuked Tehran it would be something else entirely but I don’t see the need or the reason to do that.

    • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      15 days ago

      tactical nuke

      Total meme category. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “strategic” bombings using “tactical” yields according to post-war terminology.

      • Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        15 days ago

        Sure but there’s a big difference from dropping a small yield (relatively obviously this is all demonic and awful) device on an isolated military target vs a high yield device on a population center which is what people envision as “nuking”

    • mrfugu [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      15 days ago

      I think this is the distinction. I really don’t think any amount of propaganda would get the general gen z/millennial American public to have majority support for dropping a bomb on a major city center filled with civilians.

      If they drop it somewhere else in Iran and it only destroys the homeland and ruins the lives of thousands instead of millions, the mental gymnastics would be much more common. That said tho a modern tactical nuke usage against a “purely military” target would certainly open up public sentiment towards future usage.