3 ms·
I think in a conventional war then yeah NATO clearly has the upper hand except that niggling doubt of "Do we really want to kill tens of thousands of soldiers b
by noir_lord 7y ago
I think in a conventional war then yeah NATO clearly has the upper hand except that niggling doubt of "Do we really want to kill tens of thousands of soldiers belonging to a country with enough ICBM's to end global civilization".
The risk/reward is out of whack, the US and it's allies aren't going to risk it for a non-NATO allied country (even if we promised that we would after the cold war) because of that.
Since WWII the US and Soviets (then Russia) have never thought even a limited conventional war, it's always been by proxy or the odd pilot never people is US army uniforms shooting at people in Russian uniforms (or vice versa).
It has the capacity to go so very very wrong.
- baybal2 7y ago> enough ICBM's to end global civilization There are enough conventional munitions stockpiled by major power to do this 10 times more than with ICBMs alone. A nuclear confrontation will not be the end of any global scale conflict today.
- noir_lord 7y agoYou think the major powers have the equivalant of 8 billion tonnes of TNT in conventional munitions? Because I don't. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nwhmt.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nwhmt.html
- baybal2 7y agoYou don't need to completely vaporise a city to effectively "end the civilisation" within it.
- noir_lord 7y agoExcept you said. > There are enough conventional munitions stockpiled by major power to do this 10 times more than with ICBMs alone Now you are saying that you don't have to vapourise a city. Except there are enough nukes to obliterate every major city on the planet with the side effects killing the rest.