wars of conquest are kinda an outdated concept, there's not really anything to gain from just seizing land since the true power is in the hands of business owners... you don't really gain anything from nuking Jeff Bezos, either.What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?
What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?
What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?Planting sunflower fields
Culling populations are good but I rather not have radiation all over the place. It is already hotter than it needs to be and I don't know what a nuclear winter is like.Crazy thing but "modern" nukes don't actually produce a lot of long last radiation. Ground blasts are still messy but air blasts aren't too bad long term. And that's why Hiroshima is thriving.
I mean, the idea of engaging in "conventional warfare" in the mainland US is completely laughable to the point that pretty much every nation in the world has ruled it out as a possibility.
Regardless, I've played enough defcon to have a healthy fear of launching that first nuke.
The global nuclear supply should basically be held and maintained exclusively for the slim possibility we would be able to use it in the face of an extraterrestrial threat. Using it on people guarantees we are completely fucked, and any half decent leader should not even be considering it as a possibility.
There is a reason we haven't really seen them used after the first time for anything more than posturing.
Say Russia attacked America conventionally, and was winning.Yes, the world run by Russia would be a horrible place and it would be worth the deaths caused to prevent that.
Or China captured Hawaii and refused to concede it, defeating the USA conventionally.That would suck but Hawaii hates the mainland anyway for the most part anyway. Maybe they would fix their awful tourist economy.
Or say Europe invaded the USA with a goal of taking over Washington.That really depends on who's more Fascist in this hypothetical who I would support.
Whatever the scenario, if no one uses nukes FIRST on the USA, would you support USA using nukes for defence, knowing the worldwide long lasting effect?Eh.
Is it ok to lose without having the entire world destroyed?
Is there a line? So USA obviously conceded Afghanistan and Vietnam, but what if they lost to Canada? Canada are not a dictatorship and USA could fight and revolutionise against some sort of hypothetical New Canada government in the future, but if everywhere is entirely nuked, is there even a world to take back?One nuke would kill 5 people in Canada is the main issue.
Or should nuclear weapons only be used and saved for when someone else threatens them with nukes first?Idk, clearly America is the only country crazy enough to nuke anyone.