4 ms·
Why do you think this might be more likely? Would you wait to see if the other side is going to nuke another one of your cities?. I could see it starting that
by injb 3y ago
Why do you think this might be more likely? Would you wait to see if the other side is going to nuke another one of your cities?.
I could see it starting that way. One side gambles that they can nuke one city and the enemy will deescalate to avoid a full exchange. But the other side is compelled to respond in kind, knowing that they can't sit and do nothing, and hoping that that a one-for-one exchange will be the end of it. And it might be. But if not, then it must be an all-out exchange imo.
Think about it like this: someone punches you. You punch back. If they do nothing, then that's the end of it (for now). But if they do it again - are you going to stand there all day exchanging punches? You now know that they're determined to keep hitting you. Your best chance is to throw everything you have at them right now. That minimizes the damage to you. That's clearly true if you're stronger than them. But if you think about, it it's equally true if you're weaker.
FWIW, I think everyone should stop worrying about nuclear war. The US would win hands down and everyone knows it.
- coldtea 3y ago>FWIW, I think everyone should stop worrying about nuclear war. The US would win hands down and everyone knows it. What? (Ah, beliefs that grow "only in 'Murica")
- ailef 3y ago> FWIW, I think everyone should stop worrying about nuclear war. The US would win hands down and everyone knows it. This line of reasoning is really dangerous and I'm flabbergasted that there are people who take this stance. Really unfortunate that not just randoms on HN but likely also people in Washington might believe this BS.
- injb 3y agoWell I might have worded it a bit flippantly. I didn't mean to flabbergast anyone! But I don't think what I'm saying is that far from what's commonly accepted. Mutually assured destruction is the widely accepted doctrine. What I'm saying is I think it's mutually assured near destruction with a bias in favor of the US. I think this because of a combination of (a) how much each country can lose and still exist as a country; (b) how well their defenses will likely work (c) how many other nuclear countries will take their side etc. That is just my very unscientific impression. By "everyone knows it" what I really mean is it's hard for me to imagine how any other world leader could think that they are going to be the last one standing. Absent a massive shift in the balance of military spending, technology and many other things, the US remains the clear safe bet imo.