8 ms·

Not really. As a counter point, see India/Pakistan Kargil war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War). Both were nuc

by pravula 10y ago

Not really. As a counter point, see India/Pakistan Kargil war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War). Both were nuclear armed and still kept it conventional.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
India and Pakistan share a border, though. For the US to strike Russia is either a missile or a plane. That missile or plane carries a nuclear threat that a bullet or a mortar shell doesn't. "Is that missile that's going to hit in 10 minutes carrying a nuclear warhead?" is a different category of question than "Is this shooting war on the line of control going to cause the other side to use the nuclear weapons that they have, but which are not anywhere near where the fighting is, and are clearly not yet being fired at us?"
sgt101 10y ago
Not really. You are making a false comparison. The differences are : - USA has an asymmetric conventional dominance that would prevent a non nuclear outcome that could provide a strategically acceptable outcome for Russia. - The USA's continental territory is 1000's of km from Russia; a Russian retaliation would not be short range strikes but intercontinental - this would look pretty much like a nuclear escalation even if it wasn't - The outcome of a conventional strike by Russia on the continental territory of the USA - for example one conventional cruise missile striking Portsmouth Navel Base in Maine - would be politically catastrophic for the sitting president. I cannot imagine the likely outcomes for said president or their likely next move, and I invite you to contemplate the possibility that neither you or the Russians are able to do that either. A conventional confrontation between Russia and the USA could remain rational so long as neither national territory is involved. If either national territory is involved the retaliation would lead to an irrational situation immediately - after that all bets are off. Even a clear accident would be extremely likely to trigger a nuclear war.

by pravula 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

India and Pakistan share a border, though. For the US to strike Russia is either a missile or a plane. That missile or plane carries a nuclear threat that a bullet or a mortar shell doesn't. "Is that missile that's going to hit in 10 minutes carrying a nuclear warhead?" is a different category of question than "Is this shooting war on the line of control going to cause the other side to use the nuclear weapons that they have, but which are not anywhere near where the fighting is, and are clearly not yet being fired at us?"

sgt101 10y ago

Not really. You are making a false comparison. The differences are : - USA has an asymmetric conventional dominance that would prevent a non nuclear outcome that could provide a strategically acceptable outcome for Russia. - The USA's continental territory is 1000's of km from Russia; a Russian retaliation would not be short range strikes but intercontinental - this would look pretty much like a nuclear escalation even if it wasn't - The outcome of a conventional strike by Russia on the continental territory of the USA - for example one conventional cruise missile striking Portsmouth Navel Base in Maine - would be politically catastrophic for the sitting president. I cannot imagine the likely outcomes for said president or their likely next move, and I invite you to contemplate the possibility that neither you or the Russians are able to do that either. A conventional confrontation between Russia and the USA could remain rational so long as neither national territory is involved. If either national territory is involved the retaliation would lead to an irrational situation immediately - after that all bets are off. Even a clear accident would be extremely likely to trigger a nuclear war.