• toastus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Like I don’t know that, like anyone doesn’t know that.

      Still noone, not the winning side, and especially not the losing side has any real incentive to launch them first.
      It’s basic game theory, you never choose the option that has you lose absolutely everything, even if the alternative has you lose something big (like a war, or even your life).

      Even crazed dictators like Putin know this.
      And not even Putin can launch a nuke on his own. Even he needs generals and engineers that all know that not only they themselves will die if they obey, also their families will die, everyone they know will die if they obey.

      We will never see full scale nuclear war, because noone at all could ever want that.

      But Putin benefits from rubes just letting him bully everyone around him because, boo hoo he is so crazy and scary and after so many crossed red lines the next one surely is the one that makes him suicide himself, his wife, his daughter, his country, his place in history and anyone or anything he ever valued or cared about.

      • DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Right and neither side has an incentive to push the other side to launch them so before a deciding victory a stailmate will occur and after a year or two the fighting will beginning again with no real problems solved and thousands of innocent young men paying for it

        • toastus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s just wrong for the simple reason that NATO is vastly superior in any form of conventional warfare.

          NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2.
          It would be a one sided beating.

          And russia would lose and lose fast.

          But russia would still have no incentive to be the first to launch nukes, because that would change the situation from bad to total annihilation.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2. It would be a one sided beating.

            Like NATO in Afghanistan.

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.

          • DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            All I’ve heard till now is your opinion that Russia wouldn’t launch nukes, your statements have as much weight as a fart in the wind an Russia has threatened to use nukes so idk man

    • Hubi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Russia won’t dare to use nukes as long as the fighting happens within Ukrainian borders. Putin and the oligarchs aren’t willing to lose their kleptocracy over a piece of land they only tried to get because they felt it was a safe move. An actual NATO intervention would be a way out of the conflict for them without losing face.

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      You see, this is the entirely wrong and often cited cliché that people think of when talking about war between Russia and NATO, but in reality, no such war between superpowers would be fought with nuclear weapons because there is no incentive for it, conventional warfare is much more desirable, even for the losing party. That’s why I think that we shouldn’t be afraid of openly opposing and fighting the People’s Republic in the Taiwan Strait in the defense of the actual China. And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere. A war between superpowers would not nearly be as disastrous as the Russians and Chinese want you to think.

      • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere.

        Hol’ up. We’ve got systems. None that actually work. Hitting an ICBM is like hitting a needle in a haystack with a needle in a haystack. I’m sure we’ve made progress since the 80s Star Wars programs. But even if a fraction of the nukes detonate where they are supposed to, that’s the end of civilization.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        We have systems for intercepting ballistic missiles, but they aren’t nearly effective enough.

        I tend to agree that a nuclear exchange is unlikely but, the consequences of being wrong are pretty severe.