|
|
|
|
|
by Ancapistani
1757 days ago
|
|
> But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike. I don't believe this is widely accepted. Consider that the last time the US lost significant naval assets, we committed to a hugely costly war and effectively annihilated the attacker. It was the original impetus for developing nuclear weapons in the first place, and it remains the only time they've been used against an enemy. > Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. My understanding of the military and political thinking around the use of nuclear weapons is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons inevitably leads to their strategic use. Destroying a US carrier via conventional means would carry significant risk of nuclear retaliation. Doing it through nuclear means effectively guarantees it. |
|
They also have a strategy of assured retaliation and maintain a countervalue stance. Hopefully, we won't have to find out whether or not they will follow through with it...