Comment by YetAnotherNick 4 days ago
You think if say US bombs all the CCP's planes, CCP would sit silently and accept defeat? Same thing happened with Ukraine. NATO couldn't escalate the war at any cost, so they can just play safe and only do things that don't risk escalation.
From a geopolitical standpoint, for the US specifically, yes. It's probably the most cost-effective (in money and lives) military spending the US has done since WWII.
From a human standpoint, I wish they'd given the Ukranians ATACMS and HIMARS and F-16s on week two, when it was abundantly clear they had the will to fight. The dribbling out of slowly expanding limits has been painful to watch.
Nuclear weapons don't win wars though. Once you launch, you're dead. The retaliation will guarantee your own destruction.
The Cold War led to the arms build up it did because of exactly this paradox: on close inspection, it seemed unlikely the US would lose the Eastern seaboard cities just to protect Berlin, for example.
Yep, it takes me about a month to get the new year in my head apparently, I did the quick math based on 2024.
Anyone expecting nuclear retaliation for the strikes that have been made inside Russian territory has no grasp on what it really means for a country to use a nuke, or has no confidence in a nuclear power understanding the basic game theory of what would come next. Russia would never use a nuke when a small number of missiles or drones made it past their air defence and cause minor damage on Russian soil.
The NATO strategy in Ukraine hasn’t been great for Ukraine, but the old cold warriors of the 1980s would be pissing their pants to find how well it worked against the Russians.
Wiping out significant portions of their army, navy, and air force for a fraction of a single year’s budget and not a single American death?