3 ms·
> do not attack us or else you will be nuked This sentiment has been expressed a few times in this thread now. Is it really true? From my understanding nuclea
by CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
> do not attack us or else you will be nuked
This sentiment has been expressed a few times in this thread now. Is it really true?
From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad.
The default assumption of people being rational means it should be quite safe to attack despite talks of nuclear retaliation.
- nordsieck 2y ago> From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad. It kind of depends on which countries you're talking about. The US and Russia have enough nukes that if they're involved, that's definitely true. But what about Pakistan? Or Israel? There are several nuclear powers who would have a hard time devastating a single country, not to mention the entire world.
- CuriousSkeptic 2y ago> what about Pakistan First source I found now: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680049?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1... > the climatic effects of the smoke produced by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would not be confined to the subcontinent, or even to Asia. Those effects would be enormous and global in scope.
- polotics 2y agoThere are very well studied escalation scenarios where high altitude strikes, acting basically as EMPs, with good meteorological information taken into account to manage fallout, can mean nukes can come into play and be effective as defense. Anyways the way things are going we have a non-zero chance of testing the hypothesis.