4 ms·
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 sid
by 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 agoIf 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.