If there was nuclear war, you don’t need that many bombs to have “enough for everybody”. MAD would be global, no matter where you (or the bombs, for that matter) are.
Somebody mentioned that during the cold war, USA and USSR were for the most part targeting Europe with a mutual understanding that they wanted their core to remain inhabitable. I have no idea if that is true but I don’t bet on the nuclear powers not being able to wage that war in their own interest.
I wouldn’t believe in a ‘containable’ nuclear war for one second. FR and UK won’t just watch Paris and London being glassed without retaliating on St Petersburg/Moscow. And as soon as the second most important Russian city is vaporised, they in turn won’t let the US go unharmed.
In a nuclear war, everyone is a target, no-one is a winner
We can’t worry about a war that others want to fight. We only have to prepare to increase the risk for said war for everyone to the highest possible level.
It is. There is even at least the idea in the US to use small nuclear weapons against China because they can only retaliate big time which would lead to anhilation which cancels that option.
The problem is that a nuclear war could be the best option for the US to maintain hegemony if everything continues as is.
I think: if you know that strategy, the Chinese know that strategy. And they won’t accept the possibility to be nuked exempt from punishment and hence will adapt their doctrine. No nuclear power can allow MAD to be threatened. So, in the end, every nuclear conflict will escalate into a global one, as escalation cannot be stopped.
Don’t worry. There are enough bombs for everybody.
If there was nuclear war, you don’t need that many bombs to have “enough for everybody”. MAD would be global, no matter where you (or the bombs, for that matter) are.
Somebody mentioned that during the cold war, USA and USSR were for the most part targeting Europe with a mutual understanding that they wanted their core to remain inhabitable. I have no idea if that is true but I don’t bet on the nuclear powers not being able to wage that war in their own interest.
I wouldn’t believe in a ‘containable’ nuclear war for one second. FR and UK won’t just watch Paris and London being glassed without retaliating on St Petersburg/Moscow. And as soon as the second most important Russian city is vaporised, they in turn won’t let the US go unharmed.
In a nuclear war, everyone is a target, no-one is a winner
USA, China and East Russia can fight that war. It’s Europe that has to worry about escalation.
We can’t worry about a war that others want to fight. We only have to prepare to increase the risk for said war for everyone to the highest possible level.
And nuclear war is not containable.
It is. There is even at least the idea in the US to use small nuclear weapons against China because they can only retaliate big time which would lead to anhilation which cancels that option.
The problem is that a nuclear war could be the best option for the US to maintain hegemony if everything continues as is.
If you want to think that, that’s fine with me.
I think: if you know that strategy, the Chinese know that strategy. And they won’t accept the possibility to be nuked exempt from punishment and hence will adapt their doctrine. No nuclear power can allow MAD to be threatened. So, in the end, every nuclear conflict will escalate into a global one, as escalation cannot be stopped.