In the event of a nuclear WWIII, I hope to be at ground zero. I’m reminded of the quote “Survivors would envy the dead,” attributed to Nikita Khrushchev.
Too advanced. Rocks, stones, and pointy sticks.
I’d broaden the players here to “NATO”. If (say) Russia were to attack Poland or vice versa, we’d in effect be there.
Whether the US invokes Article 5 or not, most of Europe would be embroiled in one capacity or another. I guess it’s possible to imagine a Europe-wide war that doesn’t become a “world war” but that’s pretty much how it’s worked since the 1700’s. Without Asian involvement maybe we’d call it the “seven years war two”.
I think Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising portrayed it pretty well: It would be an intense conventional war that depletes munitions, fuel and supplies at an astonishing rate, but all parties involved would still try their best to keep it non-nuclear.
It’s widely believed that the Nixon administration got wind of a Soviet plan to nuke China pre-emptively, and signaled in response that the US was ready to nuke the Soviets if they attacked China.
That was kind of a special combination of players and situations. Nixon was kind of a drunk and a madman, already hip-deep in Vietnam, and he rightfully saw that an Asia completely dominated by the Soviets was a truly destabilizing prospect for world peace. Nuclear logic works under different logic and morals than the everyday, but under that logic it made sense to signal commitment.
Nowadays the world’s stability concerns ought to be everyone doing their best to de-fang Russia, China, and the US (who do not wish to be defanged, it should be noted). While the maneuverings of the bipolar world of the 1960’s are gone, so is the system of signaling and negotiation that helped avoid destabilization. Likewise the capacity for asymmetric and lower-intensity major conflict has increased.
All of this to say is that it’s impossible to say because we’re currently not at a stable equilibrium. I do think there’s a high likelihood of someone breaking the nuclear taboo in an “I’m not touching you” kind of way, thinking it will send a strong signal without inviting a response. Maybe China doing an undersea test around Taiwan, not actually threatening anyone’s ships but ringing the bell for sure. Maybe Russia doing a visible atmospheric test on its own territory but “around” Ukraine or the Baltics, or over the North Sea. Or, I keep thinking Pete Hegseth would find it incredibly funny to plant a nuclear demolition charge underground of Iran’s nuclear facilities and say “oops, I guess one of Iran’s went off, they weren’t supposed to have them, thanks Obama!”
Whatever the situation, while I don’t think MAD is on the table so much anymore, I think that crappy signaling and decimation of the US state department make a regional nuclear war more likely than it’s ever been since the 1960’s. Plus the total wildcards of India, Pakistan, and, well Trump.
We’re not disagreeing. At all.
What I’m pushing back on is this apparent internet trope that just because one nuclear armed nation decides to use their nukes, that it translates into a generalized all-out nuclear exchange among all the nuclear-armed nations. Like a sort of apocalyptic “use it or lose it” kind of thing, or MAD writ large for the entire world.
I really think it’s a sort of misinterpretation of MAD/launch on warning and situations like you mention, combined with extrapolation that it must work that way for everyone. Which is just wrong. Just because someone uses a nuke somewhere, it doesn’t translate into universal, global thermonuclear war.
Was that ever part of the SIOP as far as anyone knows? I’ve always felt like a lot of that was doom-mongering stuff. I don’t see us nuking China just because they might be pre-eminent in a post-war landscape. Russia nuking the UK/France makes sense, considering they’re all NATO nations.
But ultimately that’s not what I’m talking about- it’s this idea that any use of nuclear weapons presumes that they’re all going to get used. Which I think is absurd in today’s environment; there’s a LOT of latitude for limited use, especially when there’s asymmetry in delivery systems and their capabilities.
On general principle, yes, but a lot rests on the word “somewhere” here. If Russia nuked Kharkhiv the world would make some noise and then hit the snooze button. We know this from painful experience over the past 4 years. But if there was an unattributed nuclear “terror attack’“ on Brussels then things get very complicated very quickly.
There are too many assholes in the world with nukes who could distribute them to other assholes who are very interested in spectacular retribution and entirely indifferent to second-order effects.
Agreed. See also posts 10 and 13.
I agree, and it already has. An eroding environment, the inevitable exhaustion of our non-renewable resources, an increase in what is already the over population of the planet, etc, will add to the volatile mix that will inevitably lead to global disaster.