4 ms·

Wouldn't that be a bit too dramatic?!? Once you've played the "nuclear card", you have committed suicide, basically. Given that a nuclear war would ensure mutu

by Rod 18y ago

Wouldn't that be a bit too dramatic?!? Once you've played the "nuclear card", you have committed suicide, basically. Given that a nuclear war would ensure mutual destruction, wouldn't China and the U.S. be better off fighting with conventional weapons only?

chancho 18y ago
Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.
- cschneid 18y ago
  That's BS. Nuclear War is a great game to play, for all ages (seriously, check it out, it's a fun waste of 30 minutes)
moe 18y ago
Well, better of as in what? From my amateur perspective I just can't see a war scenario that would make sense either way. - Then again, does war ever make sense? In a conventional conflict China would basically put their 4:1 headcount up against the modern US war machinery. And however that turns out, the losing side would probably pull the "tactical" nuclear card at some point...
- jibiki 18y ago
  Bingo. Once we start losing massive numbers of soldiers, launching nuclear weapons starts to seem much more justifiable. Particularly if anyone is convinced that launching first gives us an advantage in the ensuing fallout.
  - Rod 18y ago
    Let us imagine the doomsday scenario that China and the U.S. go to war. Let us imagine that either one loses a massive number of soldiers, say, 1 million soldiers. Using nuclear weapons would not exactly give one an advantage unless one would be able to destroy 100% of the enemy's decision-making centers in a first attack, which is impossible. Thus, if losing 1 million soldiers is bad, losing 10 million civilians is even worse. An eye for an eye? Shanghai for Los Angeles? Hong Kong for NYC? This is madness.
    - thras 18y ago
      Madness tends to happen during wars. Look at the final months of Nazi Germany or Tsarist Russia.
      - Rod 18y ago
        Good point there. Reminds me of the immortal words of Friedrich Nietzsche: "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
    - jibiki 18y ago
      Madness or not, it seems to stop people from going to war in the first place.

by Rod 18y ago

chancho 18y ago

Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.

cschneid 18y ago
That's BS. Nuclear War is a great game to play, for all ages (seriously, check it out, it's a fun waste of 30 minutes)

moe 18y ago

Well, better of as in what? From my amateur perspective I just can't see a war scenario that would make sense either way. - Then again, does war ever make sense? In a conventional conflict China would basically put their 4:1 headcount up against the modern US war machinery. And however that turns out, the losing side would probably pull the "tactical" nuclear card at some point...

jibiki 18y ago
Bingo. Once we start losing massive numbers of soldiers, launching nuclear weapons starts to seem much more justifiable. Particularly if anyone is convinced that launching first gives us an advantage in the ensuing fallout.
- Rod 18y ago
  Let us imagine the doomsday scenario that China and the U.S. go to war. Let us imagine that either one loses a massive number of soldiers, say, 1 million soldiers. Using nuclear weapons would not exactly give one an advantage unless one would be able to destroy 100% of the enemy's decision-making centers in a first attack, which is impossible. Thus, if losing 1 million soldiers is bad, losing 10 million civilians is even worse. An eye for an eye? Shanghai for Los Angeles? Hong Kong for NYC? This is madness.
  - thras 18y ago
    Madness tends to happen during wars. Look at the final months of Nazi Germany or Tsarist Russia.
    - Rod 18y ago
      Good point there. Reminds me of the immortal words of Friedrich Nietzsche: "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
  - jibiki 18y ago
    Madness or not, it seems to stop people from going to war in the first place.