When I first saw that title I thought this was about Russia, then I saw that preview sentence and it's like why the heck are you pulling the nukes out on China? And why nukes? Is genocide Europe's answer to everything?
China needs to urgently reassess its no first strike policy and then number of warheads it publicly claims to have. It's rapidly becoming clear that both are seen by NATO only as a sign of weakness and not as a genuine desire for peaceful coexistence.
If NATO wages nuclear war on China then it will not stop until Chinese civilization is wiped from existence. The proportionate counter value threat to that is not China wiping out the US, or the UK, or France, but all colonial vestiges of Western civilization, irrespective of whether or not those vestigages are nominally participating in the war. 300, 600, or even 1000 warheads are clearly not sufficient to carry out this exchange.
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.
If NATO wages nuclear war on China then it will not stop until Chinese civilization is wiped from existence.
FIFY. The US had plans to nuke China in the event the US waged nuclear war against the Soviet Union. It didn't matter if the US wasn't nominally at war with China. When US nukes start flying, some of them will land in China. I suppose you could call this a "zeroth strike policy" in the sense that the US will strike China even if the US isn't at war with China.
Maybe China and Russia do need to first strike the West for their own protection, NATO is fucking unhinged
When I first saw that title I thought this was about Russia, then I saw that preview sentence and it's like why the heck are you pulling the nukes out on China? And why nukes? Is genocide Europe's answer to everything?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
can americans just once in a while look in a mirror and see this is all the entirety of the "the west" has ever been?
deleted by creator
China needs to urgently reassess its no first strike policy and then number of warheads it publicly claims to have. It's rapidly becoming clear that both are seen by NATO only as a sign of weakness and not as a genuine desire for peaceful coexistence.
If NATO wages nuclear war on China then it will not stop until Chinese civilization is wiped from existence. The proportionate counter value threat to that is not China wiping out the US, or the UK, or France, but all colonial vestiges of Western civilization, irrespective of whether or not those vestigages are nominally participating in the war. 300, 600, or even 1000 warheads are clearly not sufficient to carry out this exchange.
deleted by creator
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.
FIFY. The US had plans to nuke China in the event the US waged nuclear war against the Soviet Union. It didn't matter if the US wasn't nominally at war with China. When US nukes start flying, some of them will land in China. I suppose you could call this a "zeroth strike policy" in the sense that the US will strike China even if the US isn't at war with China.
Even a first strike takes between 5-30 minutes to arrive depending on what is launched. So the United States would fire all their shit by then.