3 ms·

Do you have any historical examples of someone accomplishing what you’ve described? It seems like if what you are arguing is possible, nukes don’t need to be i

• baybal2 6y ago
  Well, all of the above is so far purely hypothetical. There are exactly 0 countries on record who went on offensive against nuclear states, with intention to invade them. To execute a strategy like this, one needs to be quite a monster to rationalise such losses in their sane mind. It is as ruthless to your own soldiers, as it is to the enemy: forcing a stronger enemy into the most ugly, meat grinding form of ground war, with exact intention to exact maximum attrition losses, while negating advantages of high tech weaponry. Sending them a message "All your bombers, and missiles are useless at the bayonet range, you will have to bury us with your bodies" Even Mao only sent covert cues to Soviets that he is ready to repeat Zhenbaotai, but even he had no real intention to follow up on them. That was a pure theatre.
  • landryraccoon 6y ago
    What you're saying sounds like a strong argument in favor of my original post. It is insane to go to war against a nuclear armed opponent. Sure, you could kill half your able bodied population of military age and maybe win (what if something goes wrong in your battle plan? Now you're nuked and the opponent is still combat ready), but now any of your neighbors can easily take advantage of your now devastated country.