Certainly say you’ll retaliate, of course. And do everything you can to prevent an attack or minimize the damage from an attack. But after that…what’s the point in murdering more people?
Sure, ive already said to send everything after putin…and his cronies. But just killing as many people as possible seems unnecessarily blood thirsty, pointless, and down right fucking evil.
Because the very fact that your opinion is discussed and considered legitimate by someone increases the chance that they’ll launch a full attack. For MAD to work, they have to believe with 100% certainty that we’ll retaliate, which means we literally can’t even consider the option of not retaliating. And that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Hey, no shit. I get it. Publicly stick to the MAD doctrine as long as it’s working, which it has been for decades. But once it fails and missles are flying, then we’re just making an already bad outcome so much worse for no reason.
And publicly making that statement means you aren’t “sticking to the MAD doctrine”.
There you go again, considering it. When I said that we can’t consider not retaliating, that includes this conversation we’re having right now.
Im not in charge, am I? Wait, am I!?
You vote, don’t you?
I have voted on things, yes. But my finger isn’t on the button.
Some ideas are so dangerous they need to be nipped at the bud. This is the fate of the world we’re talking about.
The fate of the world after missles are flying is either everyone is fucked, or half of everyone is fucked.
Which is why it’s essential to ensure that the missiles never start flying, which means assuring that if they do then everyone is fucked.
No, it means assuring that everybody believes that everyone is fucked.
Which means not going around saying things like “we’re just making an already bad outcome so much worse for no reason.”
Maybe if i was a politician, sure. But lucky for everybody, im not.
You certainly seem to be expressing an opinion on what you think politicians should be doing.
Im expressing my opinion. And I trust most of our world nuclear power leaders have had these internal thoughts that I’m expressing, whether or not they agree with it.
OK, let’s play out the hypothetical:
Side A launches nuclear weapons. Side B decides not to retaliate. Side B is now fXXXed, government and economy shattered, much suffering, etc. Side A is intact. Side A now invades what’s left of Side B (doesn’t matter the reason - from outright imperialism to “we’re from government A and we’re here to help you”). Side B is now not only fXXXed due being subjected to nuclear detonations, the survivors are now also subjugated by Side B.
If Side A is like the Nazi’s or Putin’s Russia this could be quite horrific for the survivors. Assuming Side A doesn’t just decide to finish exterminating everyone they don’t like. Side A wins not just the war but the world, forever and ever, because anyone they don’t like they just nuke so nothing will ever change.
Is that the world you want? Are you OK with that outcome?
The alternative is retaliation and both A and B are fXXXed, but more or less equally so and survivors (if any) have to rebuild, if possible. Is that the world anyone wants?
I’ve already said im ok with targeting the leadership. And of course their war assets, to the best of our intelligence. But if B is completely wiped, or just a tiny fraction of survivors in a nuclear hellscape, what’s the point in murdering 10s to 100s of millions more people? Why even would A invade B if all of B’s assets were removed? Humanity has risen up against subjugation before and they will eventually again. Sooner than later if there is more humanity around.
Oh, you are such an optimist… no, there is no cosmic justice or other reason that humanity will ever rise up against a tyrant. For most of history people have lived under one form of dictatorship or another (because that’s what monarchy is, hereditary dictatorship). Hundreds of millions have lived in slavery or other forms of servitude. A modern police state combined with a ruthless dictator gives no opportunity to organize a rebellion.
Why invade B? Resources, of course. Not food, but any fuel resources that might be left. It would also be a good dumping ground for A’s malcontents. Capturing B’s survivors might mean slave labor for A. All sorts of reasons.
Or just a vicious “we must kill them all, every one” attitude.