4 ms·

Hypersonic weapons changes that. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to confuse with nuclear weapons. Combine that with cyber warfare and drone/robotic warfar

Hypersonic weapons changes that. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to confuse with nuclear weapons. Combine that with cyber warfare and drone/robotic warfare... And it is now possible to have an all out conventional warfare style war again. MAD no longer applies here. MAD was relevant when "destruction" required nuclear weapons. It didn't really mean "you destroy me I destroy you." It meant, you launch nuclear weapons (which will destroy me) and I have enough left over to destroy you. That warfare no longer presents the likely scenario as would unfold between two superpowers.

nytgop77 6y ago
I dont understand. Both ear sides want to win. If loosing side has nuclear weapons, they will use them eith the goal to win. Why would they NOT use it?
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  There are different degrees to losing a war. The end result of losing a conventional war could be (IMO "would be") much better than the result for that same side if it let loose nukes. A direct war between two nuclear powers need not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Of course it's only rational to fear such a result.
  - nytgop77 6y ago
    If tou could give an example (hipothetical scenario), maybe I would get what you mean. How I see it. Let's say, russia dared to enter a real multi-battle direct war with usa, to take alaska, and is winning a bit more each day. When would usa say "we give up, please take the alaska, we will not use our nukes?". - Immediately after the start while there are no casualties? - after 1k casualties on both sides? - after going to total war mode, when each side bombs industry complex'es and later cities on the other side? Backing down would say "nukes are not deterant anymore. Same thing can be done to us again." btw. Nukes can be used, not only on cities, but also on fleets and divisionsand camps. So the only way nukes would be not used if victory would be very instantaneous and total, which does not seem probable.

nytgop77 6y ago

I dont understand. Both ear sides want to win. If loosing side has nuclear weapons, they will use them eith the goal to win. Why would they NOT use it?

CogitoCogito 6y ago
There are different degrees to losing a war. The end result of losing a conventional war could be (IMO "would be") much better than the result for that same side if it let loose nukes. A direct war between two nuclear powers need not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Of course it's only rational to fear such a result.
- nytgop77 6y ago
  If tou could give an example (hipothetical scenario), maybe I would get what you mean. How I see it. Let's say, russia dared to enter a real multi-battle direct war with usa, to take alaska, and is winning a bit more each day. When would usa say "we give up, please take the alaska, we will not use our nukes?". - Immediately after the start while there are no casualties? - after 1k casualties on both sides? - after going to total war mode, when each side bombs industry complex'es and later cities on the other side? Backing down would say "nukes are not deterant anymore. Same thing can be done to us again." btw. Nukes can be used, not only on cities, but also on fleets and divisionsand camps. So the only way nukes would be not used if victory would be very instantaneous and total, which does not seem probable.