2 ms·

Precisely. Tit-for-tat has always been the most effective strategy.

• Retric 11y ago
  Assuming accurate information. It's far less useful in the real world.
  • notahacker 11y ago
    Indeed given that in the real world a false alarm is far more likely than an actual inbound missile strike, maintaining a convincing illusion of willingness to carry out tit-for-tat" is a far better survival strategy than one which involves actually launching the nukes. If you're too late to retaliate, it doesn't really make much difference to your civilians' survival rates but it certainly does if you fire prematurely when the enemy wasn't* in the process of escalating the conflict
    • vidarh 11y ago
      Even that is dangerous, because it means that an adversary who think they have inadvertently crossed a line will have every reason to go all out, because they'll expect a full scale retaliation. Indicating a willingness to use nuclear weapons at all may also make an adversary more willing to believe you may deviate from policy and strike first, which again may lead them to believe an all out first strike is safer than holding back (e.g. I've mentioned Able Archer 83, where the Soviet leadership allegedly considered a first strike because they thought the US was planning one) Part of the problem is that neither you nor the other side knows whether your opponent will stick to any given strategy, nor if they will behave rationally.