No current neoliberal, neocon, or narcissistic populist American leader would precipitate a nuclear exchange because they enjoy self-preservation too much.
The risks are primarily of 3 scenarios spiraling out of control:
A. India attacks Pakistan. Like Likud, India's government is full of crazy BJP war hawks.
B. Putin's power were threatened. His view is that Ukrainian aid is waning and the Hamas attack takes attention away, so he feels pretty safe for now.
C. China attacks Taiwan. Xi is an arrogant autocrat, expanding neocolonial with Belt and Road Initiative, and believe they own the South China Sea. I don't see how this could end without either China obliterating Taiwan manufacturing base or a wider exchange.
Furthermore, it's far more relatively "tolerable" by the international order to diffusely level areas by continual conventional munitions accomplishing similar end results of nuclear detonations: widespread destruction. So why broach an unthinkable red line when there's an equivalent substitute?
I have belief in MAD and self-preservation are the ultimate deterrents when leaders aren't suicidal.
I also believe MAD serves a purpose to prevent future conventional World Wars. Denuclearization, while aspirationally wonderful, would counterintuitively make the world less safe because the average person doesn't understand what actually keeps them safe: a strong military.
The US could get by on 1/3 the amount of defense spending. It's spending way, way too much on boondoggles, pork projects, and the MIC's revolving door of generals and defense contractors.
The risks are primarily of 3 scenarios spiraling out of control:
A. India attacks Pakistan. Like Likud, India's government is full of crazy BJP war hawks.
B. Putin's power were threatened. His view is that Ukrainian aid is waning and the Hamas attack takes attention away, so he feels pretty safe for now.
C. China attacks Taiwan. Xi is an arrogant autocrat, expanding neocolonial with Belt and Road Initiative, and believe they own the South China Sea. I don't see how this could end without either China obliterating Taiwan manufacturing base or a wider exchange.
Furthermore, it's far more relatively "tolerable" by the international order to diffusely level areas by continual conventional munitions accomplishing similar end results of nuclear detonations: widespread destruction. So why broach an unthinkable red line when there's an equivalent substitute?
I have belief in MAD and self-preservation are the ultimate deterrents when leaders aren't suicidal.
I also believe MAD serves a purpose to prevent future conventional World Wars. Denuclearization, while aspirationally wonderful, would counterintuitively make the world less safe because the average person doesn't understand what actually keeps them safe: a strong military.
The US could get by on 1/3 the amount of defense spending. It's spending way, way too much on boondoggles, pork projects, and the MIC's revolving door of generals and defense contractors.