• Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@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

      • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@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