Well 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.

Well 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.