6 ms·

>> nukes are not an argument for anything but main land defense from invasions But it is not an argument even for that. Imagine Russian tanks are crossing the

• dathinab 1mo ago
  yes, quite likely and if we look on some of the more extreme cases: France Nuclear doctrine is not "we could decide to use nukes if our country is invaded" but roughly more like "we use them by default in such a case and you would need to overrule this to not use them" Through this is for a "full on invasion in the classical sense". This is unlikely to bee seen as triggered for e.g. colonies or some back and force on border disputes (including e.g. attack on supply lines behind the border). nukes only work as a deterrent if you are willing to use them if a (deep) bottom line is crossed, like foreign tanks heading to your capital I'm not saying this is good, just that you really shouldn't rely on people not using nukes.
  • ponector 1mo ago
    Doctrine means nothing. Russian doctrine says they should use nukes against Ukraine. But there is no point in uaing it, no advantage to gain. Russians will send you back 10x warheads. Are you going to use nukes knowing that?