> Launching the nukes would be bad for whoever they blew up, but bad for whoever launched them, too, particularly if whoever they launched them at launched thei

> Launching the nukes would be bad for whoever they blew up, but bad for whoever launched them, too, particularly if whoever they launched them at launched their own. Yes, but it wouldn't hurt them in terms of power. Here's Mao: > I'm not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn't matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. > If the US were to release all the wrongly-convicted brown-skinned people, would that be good for China and bad for the US? It would presumably be neutral; the US either does it for some reason, or for no reason. If they do it for reasons of social stability or keeping crime low, it would hurt them. If they do it out of laziness, corrupt legal systems, etc, it would be to their gain. > if China stopped abusing its Uyghur citizens, that would ... arguably [be good] for the rest If so, why keep doing it? And why do they have to be told by the US to do what is good for them? Is the US in the habit of giving countries "helpful hints," like a back-seat driver? When the US encouraged the Soviet Union to abandon its economic system, did they do so out of concern for the well-being and economic standard of ordinary Soviet citizens, or for some other reason?