3 ms·
Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself how it m
by rrggrr 9y ago
Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself how it may have been different if the disparity in conventional capabilities had been great. In some cases I don't recall dates, but do recall severity of conflict:
US v. China - by proxy (Korean War)
US v. Russia - by proxy (Vietnam War)
US v. Russia - by proxy (Afghanistan Conflict)
India v. Pakistan
India v. China
US v. Russia - by proxy (1973 Yom Kippur War Brinksmanship)
- pjc50 9y agoYou said that "countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons" You said "expeditionary", not "proxy", which is very different. The Korean war ended in 1953 and the Chinese government did not get nuclear weapons until 1965 and ICBM capability later. The actual shooting wars between India and Pakistan mostly pre-date both countries achieving nuclear weapons, indicating that MAD generally works.