300, 600, or even 1000 warheads are clearly not sufficient to carry out this exchange
what the fuck are you talking about. 'the problem with 2,000+ nuclear warheads exploding is that it wouldn't do enough damage'. go embrace a loved one or something this is disturbing shit to say
Just because it's disturbing doesn't mean it can't also be true. If two guys are staring each other down with guns, the fear of the other guy shooting back is the main thing that stops either guy from taking the first shot. But if one guy thought the other was out of bullets? Or that their bullets can't get through his armor? Why not take a shot?
America is entering a domestic and international death spiral. The best way to keep it from using it's nukes on the way down is to let every American know on no uncertain terms that if they try, they die.
for this to be true it must be demonstrated that the very large stockpile & tot-for-tat meetings of american escalations from the Soviets meaningfully altered US belligerency. i do not think this is a clear or correct conclusion to draw from the cold war.
It's probably not super helpful to debate counterfactuals since they're not probable either way. I do think it's reasonable to say that Russia's nuclear stockpile deters NATO escalations in Ukraine even to this day. But again, not provable unless you've sat in on some top level NATO meetings.
what the fuck are you talking about. 'the problem with 2,000+ nuclear warheads exploding is that it wouldn't do enough damage'. go embrace a loved one or something this is disturbing shit to say
Just because it's disturbing doesn't mean it can't also be true. If two guys are staring each other down with guns, the fear of the other guy shooting back is the main thing that stops either guy from taking the first shot. But if one guy thought the other was out of bullets? Or that their bullets can't get through his armor? Why not take a shot?
America is entering a domestic and international death spiral. The best way to keep it from using it's nukes on the way down is to let every American know on no uncertain terms that if they try, they die.
for this to be true it must be demonstrated that the very large stockpile & tot-for-tat meetings of american escalations from the Soviets meaningfully altered US belligerency. i do not think this is a clear or correct conclusion to draw from the cold war.
It's probably not super helpful to debate counterfactuals since they're not probable either way. I do think it's reasonable to say that Russia's nuclear stockpile deters NATO escalations in Ukraine even to this day. But again, not provable unless you've sat in on some top level NATO meetings.