I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that China is looking at Ukraine. What it shows is that an invasion would set up a chain reaction that would disrupt intern

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that China is looking at Ukraine. What it shows is that an invasion would set up a chain reaction that would disrupt international order with very negative effects for its economy and strategic goals. Obviously there will need to be another way. Diplomatically China has been getting good wins in "the other way". Russia also has nuclear weapons and even she does not use it for this invasion. Nuclear weapons have a great effect on public opinion including domestically as it is clearly a weapon of mass destruction/murder. Actually any form of offensive is faux pas and most beligerants avoid calling it a war. It is always framed as a defense of something, see Russian "special military operation", see American "liberation" of Afghanistan or Iraq. Likewise the Chinese would call it "taking it back" and a mere domestic affair. A nuke is clearly a form of total war. Dropping nukes is taken in the last resort doctrine, and there is no historical precedent of euphemism in its use. Speaking of which, a country's nuclear weapon usage doctrines are public so that coexistence can exist and mistakes do not happen. People talk as if commanders can consider nuclear weapons as standard part of the arsenal but that is not so. It is one of the few weapons which likely would lead to the total destruction and thus defeat of a state due to the Mutual assured destruction concept. A great example is the Pakistani nuclear weapon doctrine[1]. It is so clear that i almost wish all countries would have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan would have had murderous wars if not for them. Instead they are the stick that allows for softer talk. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_doctrine_of_Pakistan#Levels_of_threshold https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_doctrine_of_Pakistan...