While we can all hope that is the case… I think you misunderstand what nukes are there for. In the US’ case anyway.
There’s no real strategy to the nukes… it’s just “attack us and we’re losing? Nuke. So don’t even think about it.” That’s the entire concept of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear armed nations with properly hardened nukes (which the US absolutely has and China, I assume, has equivalent nukes. In the ground, under the sea, on stand by for planes as well) all exist under the constant implicit and also explicit threat of what I wrote above. They are called deterrence missiles in the US. Deterrence against other nuclear armed nations even thinking about a first strike nuke or invasion.
I suppose the only “what if” is “what if the US loses horribly abroad. But the mainland isn’t attacked by nukes (or something else) and there is no invasion?” Maybe that’s what you meant?
It’s still plausible to me that the US president smashes that button. We aren’t exactly known for having sane, rational people in that position. But that’s about the only scenario I can see direct US/China confrontation without nuclear exchange. If the US fucks around with, I dunno, Taiwan and immediately China shuts it down. Maybe the US takes the L. Still, over the long term if such a conflict begins… nuclear exchange seems inevitable. From the US side starting it due to losing.
I understand that nuclear weapons exist for the U.S. to use as a last resort to destroy the world to prevent the good guys from truly winning, in the end.
I don’t think that nuclear weapons are as big of a threat as the U.S. parades them around to be, or as comrades say they are.
I’m not saying the U.S. would never launch nuclear weapons, or that we should approach it with no caution, I just think it’s unlikely that the bourgeoisie would actually use them.
Not sure why you’re downvoted. They’re making direct counters to U.S naval policy. Drones, submarines, unveiling sixth gen bombers specifically, etc. They vastly outnumber them in manpower and soon ships. We learned from Ukraine that reliability and force wins out over western wunderwaffe.
I’ve read that China even has the technology to remotely detect and shut down nuclear missiles, or scramble, disable or short them out. Or at the very least, identify or shoot them before they are truly primed.
I’m not particularly worried about the U.S. firing nuclear weapons at China, but I’m not nonchalant about it, either.
That’s why I figure that China would be the safest place in the world if/when World War 3 or nuclear war breaks out.
If the U.S. forces a war with China, China would most likely easily when, especially before nukes are launched.
I assume you meant win not when
While we can all hope that is the case… I think you misunderstand what nukes are there for. In the US’ case anyway.
There’s no real strategy to the nukes… it’s just “attack us and we’re losing? Nuke. So don’t even think about it.” That’s the entire concept of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear armed nations with properly hardened nukes (which the US absolutely has and China, I assume, has equivalent nukes. In the ground, under the sea, on stand by for planes as well) all exist under the constant implicit and also explicit threat of what I wrote above. They are called deterrence missiles in the US. Deterrence against other nuclear armed nations even thinking about a first strike nuke or invasion.
I suppose the only “what if” is “what if the US loses horribly abroad. But the mainland isn’t attacked by nukes (or something else) and there is no invasion?” Maybe that’s what you meant?
It’s still plausible to me that the US president smashes that button. We aren’t exactly known for having sane, rational people in that position. But that’s about the only scenario I can see direct US/China confrontation without nuclear exchange. If the US fucks around with, I dunno, Taiwan and immediately China shuts it down. Maybe the US takes the L. Still, over the long term if such a conflict begins… nuclear exchange seems inevitable. From the US side starting it due to losing.
I understand that nuclear weapons exist for the U.S. to use as a last resort to destroy the world to prevent the good guys from truly winning, in the end.
I don’t think that nuclear weapons are as big of a threat as the U.S. parades them around to be, or as comrades say they are.
I’m not saying the U.S. would never launch nuclear weapons, or that we should approach it with no caution, I just think it’s unlikely that the bourgeoisie would actually use them.
But people aren’t 100 percent rational, either.
Not sure why you’re downvoted. They’re making direct counters to U.S naval policy. Drones, submarines, unveiling sixth gen bombers specifically, etc. They vastly outnumber them in manpower and soon ships. We learned from Ukraine that reliability and force wins out over western wunderwaffe.
I’ve read that China even has the technology to remotely detect and shut down nuclear missiles, or scramble, disable or short them out. Or at the very least, identify or shoot them before they are truly primed.
I’m not particularly worried about the U.S. firing nuclear weapons at China, but I’m not nonchalant about it, either.
That’s why I figure that China would be the safest place in the world if/when World War 3 or nuclear war breaks out.