Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
This perception is not only wrong, it is dangerous, as it undermines credibility of deterrence.
Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example) and plan for it specifically (as documented by the US NPR for example), there are many, many ways a conventional war may push for use of nuclear weapons, for example via entanglement.
And then there is a whole group of scenarios where one side mis-perceives something of another.
I would suggest starting with this brief by Acton&co:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/1...ties-pub-77620
I can link more papers later.
p.s. there are many other mis-perceptions here, for example regarding the Soviet intentions and plans for the naval warfare, but they are less important. |
I am completely dumbfounded as to your logic and reasoning.
quote: Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example)
That would ensure a full retaliatory response so in fact, that is the basis for deterrence.
With regards to a conventional conflict having the potential for going nuclear-
Just don't do it or there will be real consequences. If various governments are smart enough to know a conventional war could go further with a nuclear exchange, then they are smart enough to know not to try.That's deterrence. I hope that's the thinking within the U.S, anyhow.
It's that simple.
By the way, Russia deploying hyper-sonic weapons and nuclear torpedoes just to name a couple weapon systems isn't a threat to peace or deterrence ?
As the saying in Russia goes, " it's not the wolves in Gorky park you need to be afraid of, it's the ones you don't see. "
* Thanks for the link by the way. There is a lot of reading there *