Any limited use of nuclear weapons pretty much is guaranteed to result in a full-scale exchange.
Even Ronald Reagan finally accepted this.
And of course we just increased the probability of this happening by deploying a low yield nuclear weapon onto our subs.
On the same missile that would carry a high yield weapon…so any enemy, of course, wouldn’t know which one we launched.
The farther and farther we get from our last destructive war (WW II), the more of us that remember the Cold War that die off, the greater the likelihood we’ll stumble into a new war.
Four years later an entire generation was destroyed.
The difference is that now we can basically reset civilization back to the medieval period in 30 minutes. But there’s no guarantee that we will avoid making the big mistake.
I remember Reagan officials talking about Proud Prophet years after the fact. And they used his top officials in the war games.
They went into the simulation highly confident that winning a limited nuclear war was not only possible but probable.
After the exercise they were scared ■■■■■■■■ how quickly things went off the rails and they committed to a full exchange. With no one decision that they made that could be pointed to as mistaken or irrational.
PS I do notice that Esper didn’t say how this war game actually ended.
The second we developed nuclear weapons, we guaranteed our species extinction. The realization of alternate perceived truths is just icing on the metaphorical cake.
Species extinction I disagree with. Though it would put the planet back to the dark ages in the places that did survive.
Bio weapons on the other hand… A nasty one of those gets loose and that could be game over. Something with a long onset before people become symptomatic so people keep traveling… that would be a species eraser.
Thus wiping out your army…which was my point. If we didnt have nukes youd have a point. Then sheer numbers with all that jazz you said should create a huge advantage…but we dont live in that world anymore
