John Ramos3 said:Childish...
In some hypothetical nuclear conflict, the supposed winner is whoever brings the biggest army, the most allies (which, if you ask me, the USA lacks... since the Brits tend to be a bit too eager to please...), the best gear, and ultimately, more "nukes"...
though I suppose nobody gives a damn about diplomacy when things go south...
"where diplomacy ends, war begins"
And just how many times have "nukes" actually been used so far????????
Even countries like Pakistan and India don't pull that trigger because they understand the fallout would be absolute for both sides; at that point, it doesn't really matter if you're sitting on 1,000 or 2,000 warheads. Honestly, even five strategically placed units could devastate both China and the USA to an unimaginable degree. And I suspect both sides are well aware of that..................🙄
As for the idea that someone wins a "nuclear" war by having a larger military force—that strikes me as complete nonsense. In a conflict like that, there aren't any winners, just varying degrees of losers........🙄 🙄