3 ms·

What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting n

What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.

empressplay 6y ago
Which is why nobody will push the button, even if they're being invaded, they'll just accept being occupied and mount a resistance. MAD always relied on a fiction of natural insanity that doesn't actually exist. I don't think any tactician takes widespread nuclear exchanges seriously as a likely outcome to any contemporary global conflict.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  You think we have all rational players in the game right now?
- hnzix 6y ago
  The numerous instances of near-misses which were only averted by crew disobeying direct orders contradicts your narrative.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
baybal2 6y ago
> I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked. There is only one country in the world which is reliably able to afford being nuked, and has "surviving first, and second strike" as part of its many doctrines. The only major country against which MAD is not so assured is China.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  You’re talking about killing millions because of a disagreement in management styles
  - baybal2 6y ago
    I'd say US, and China's contradictions are by far greater than "disagreement in management styles" USA talks TikTak, but the world hears "the overall political arrangement of China"
    - pms 6y ago
      Invasion on Iraq led to many deaths and was based on false premises and similar "disagreement in management styles". War with China would be a terrible calamity. I don't understand why, but the US is turning into a bad actor, and the most scary thing is that it's convinced it's a good actor.
  - simonblack 6y ago
    Mao is reputed to have said regarding a nuclear war. "Kill 300 million Chinese, still got a billion Chinese left. Kill 300 million Americans, no more America."

What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.

empressplay 6y ago

Which is why nobody will push the button, even if they're being invaded, they'll just accept being occupied and mount a resistance. MAD always relied on a fiction of natural insanity that doesn't actually exist. I don't think any tactician takes widespread nuclear exchanges seriously as a likely outcome to any contemporary global conflict.

jjeaff 6y ago
You think we have all rational players in the game right now?
hnzix 6y ago
The numerous instances of near-misses which were only averted by crew disobeying direct orders contradicts your narrative.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

baybal2 6y ago

> I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked. There is only one country in the world which is reliably able to afford being nuked, and has "surviving first, and second strike" as part of its many doctrines. The only major country against which MAD is not so assured is China.

kingkawn 6y ago
You’re talking about killing millions because of a disagreement in management styles
- baybal2 6y ago
  I'd say US, and China's contradictions are by far greater than "disagreement in management styles" USA talks TikTak, but the world hears "the overall political arrangement of China"
  - pms 6y ago
    Invasion on Iraq led to many deaths and was based on false premises and similar "disagreement in management styles". War with China would be a terrible calamity. I don't understand why, but the US is turning into a bad actor, and the most scary thing is that it's convinced it's a good actor.
- simonblack 6y ago
  Mao is reputed to have said regarding a nuclear war. "Kill 300 million Chinese, still got a billion Chinese left. Kill 300 million Americans, no more America."