Here's something to consider. Would a hot war between two nuclear powers ever actually result in a nuclear exchange? Consider the following...
Two nuclear powers build up massive military forces on either side of a border somewhere. Maybe one is directly committed while the other is committing by arming locals. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
One side sends troops over the border in limited numbers. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
One side rolls in with tanks and aircraft. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
Both sides are now clashing in a full-scale conventional ground war. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
The dust is settling and one side's military has fully occupied the contested zone. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
The only situation I see where a nuclear exchange becomes possible is if one side is directly invading the other, and the other is in a "Battle of Berlin" situation, sending old men and children to the front with nothing to lose. But by the time you get to that level of desperation, the invading side has had ample opportunity to take control of the losing side's nuclear stockpile.
The neoliberal sub spent all day yesterday arguing that the US could survive a nuclear exchange, merely bumping it from "superpower" to "great power" during reconstruction, whereas Russia and China would be 100% wiped from the face of the earth, a long-term victory in the eyes of liberal psychopaths.
These are the kind of people driving policy at every level of American politics. They literally can't believe that America could lose a conflict, even if every major city on the continent is turned to glass.
"Even if America is temporarily crippled, liberal democracy will live on, more easily than ever with Russia and China out of the picture."
We do not have rational actors running the show in the US.
They have a similar argument in "yes prime minister"
To be honest it kinda makes sense, the whole MAD thing only works if you can convince your adversaries that you are unhinged
lmao that's where I first got this idea from. I've never heard a convincing counter-argument - if Russia was rolling tanks into Alaska and Washington, we still wouldn't push the button. Probably.
I think you're underestimating how genocidal the average American and average American politician is. Once anti-imperialist soldiers step on US soil, nukes become popular opinion.
Here's something to consider. Would a hot war between two nuclear powers ever actually result in a nuclear exchange? Consider the following...
Two nuclear powers build up massive military forces on either side of a border somewhere. Maybe one is directly committed while the other is committing by arming locals. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
One side sends troops over the border in limited numbers. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
One side rolls in with tanks and aircraft. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
Both sides are now clashing in a full-scale conventional ground war. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
The dust is settling and one side's military has fully occupied the contested zone. Do you launch a nuke? Of course not, that would result in the world's destruction.
The only situation I see where a nuclear exchange becomes possible is if one side is directly invading the other, and the other is in a "Battle of Berlin" situation, sending old men and children to the front with nothing to lose. But by the time you get to that level of desperation, the invading side has had ample opportunity to take control of the losing side's nuclear stockpile.
The neoliberal sub spent all day yesterday arguing that the US could survive a nuclear exchange, merely bumping it from "superpower" to "great power" during reconstruction, whereas Russia and China would be 100% wiped from the face of the earth, a long-term victory in the eyes of liberal psychopaths.
These are the kind of people driving policy at every level of American politics. They literally can't believe that America could lose a conflict, even if every major city on the continent is turned to glass.
"Even if America is temporarily crippled, liberal democracy will live on, more easily than ever with Russia and China out of the picture."
We do not have rational actors running the show in the US.
They need to watch War Games
They need to watch Threads.
https://youtu.be/5Srqyd8B9gE
They have a similar argument in "yes prime minister" To be honest it kinda makes sense, the whole MAD thing only works if you can convince your adversaries that you are unhinged
lmao that's where I first got this idea from. I've never heard a convincing counter-argument - if Russia was rolling tanks into Alaska and Washington, we still wouldn't push the button. Probably.
I think you're underestimating how genocidal the average American and average American politician is. Once anti-imperialist soldiers step on US soil, nukes become popular opinion.
This assumes that the powers are both rational. Relatedly, the only country on earth with a nuclear first strike policy is the US.