• Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    You see, this is the entirely wrong and often cited cliché that people think of when talking about war between Russia and NATO, but in reality, no such war between superpowers would be fought with nuclear weapons because there is no incentive for it, conventional warfare is much more desirable, even for the losing party. That’s why I think that we shouldn’t be afraid of openly opposing and fighting the People’s Republic in the Taiwan Strait in the defense of the actual China. And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere. A war between superpowers would not nearly be as disastrous as the Russians and Chinese want you to think.

    • DriftinGrifter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The Losing Party tends to be The people though not the ones in charge

    • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere.

      Hol’ up. We’ve got systems. None that actually work. Hitting an ICBM is like hitting a needle in a haystack with a needle in a haystack. I’m sure we’ve made progress since the 80s Star Wars programs. But even if a fraction of the nukes detonate where they are supposed to, that’s the end of civilization.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      We have systems for intercepting ballistic missiles, but they aren’t nearly effective enough.

      I tend to agree that a nuclear exchange is unlikely but, the consequences of being wrong are pretty severe.