″ If NATO missile defense can change the calculus such that retaliation from a first strike seems survivable”
Lol. Survive retaliation? Depends on what you mean by surviving. Maybe only get 70% of your country destroyed instead of 100%, maybe only get 70% of the population subsequently die from nuclear winter? Not much of a survival.
Stuxnet the Russian arsenal? Are you serious? That barely worked in a baby nuclear arsenal, do you think it would work in the nation with the greatest nuclear arsenal, and with some of the most capable communities of cyber warfare?
Why would NATO want to pretty much “just almost” destroy the world just to invade Russia?
There are depressingly many Washington think tanks who produce whitepapers on “winnable” nuclear exchanges with Russia and China. It does indeed depend on what you mean by surviving. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
The problem is not what the enemy will do, it’s what the enemy can do.
Maybe no need to attribute any qualities to those papers. If, for instance, the situation was such that such war was inevitable, then yes, it makes sense to know if we could “survive” someway.
My claim was simply that NATO would never invade Russia knowing that it would take at least civilization collapsed. It’s completely self-defeating. The person to which I responded said “it’s not as simple as”Russia has nukes, the end”, in the context of a possible NATO invasion of Russia. All I meant to say was it effectively is.
″ If NATO missile defense can change the calculus such that retaliation from a first strike seems survivable”
Lol. Survive retaliation? Depends on what you mean by surviving. Maybe only get 70% of your country destroyed instead of 100%, maybe only get 70% of the population subsequently die from nuclear winter? Not much of a survival.
Stuxnet the Russian arsenal? Are you serious? That barely worked in a baby nuclear arsenal, do you think it would work in the nation with the greatest nuclear arsenal, and with some of the most capable communities of cyber warfare?
Why would NATO want to pretty much “just almost” destroy the world just to invade Russia?
There are depressingly many Washington think tanks who produce whitepapers on “winnable” nuclear exchanges with Russia and China. It does indeed depend on what you mean by surviving. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
The problem is not what the enemy will do, it’s what the enemy can do.
Maybe no need to attribute any qualities to those papers. If, for instance, the situation was such that such war was inevitable, then yes, it makes sense to know if we could “survive” someway.
My claim was simply that NATO would never invade Russia knowing that it would take at least civilization collapsed. It’s completely self-defeating. The person to which I responded said “it’s not as simple as”Russia has nukes, the end”, in the context of a possible NATO invasion of Russia. All I meant to say was it effectively is.