[stickfigure]

> There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side.

I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday.

Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once the nukes start flying there's really only one option - immediately take out as many of your enemy's weapons as possible. Sink all submarines, nuke all silos, hope for "no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."

[namelessoracle]

Would it? Would you order a nuclear strike on a target that would guarantee a retaliation that would destroy your country and maybe the world and likely yourself?

Especially if a purely military target was hit like a carrier group and it was all soldiers that died?

Its not so obvious to me that every leader could do that.

Now look at the opposite. You are a leader who is about to be killed/ousted/lose everything if current course continues. No matter what you are probably dead in 10 years anyways due to old age. Why not? Especially if you think Putin is how he is portrayed by Western media?

[stickfigure]

By that same logic, Putin could nuke NYC and there should be no response. And then Washington. And then San Francisco. The calculus is the same.

Not sure what culture you grew up in, but I grew up in the "progressive" side of the US and I'm quite certain that even the folks out here would demand immediate retaliation. The folks that grew up in red states are even more bloodthirsty. At minimum we'll be using nukes against Russian military targets, and I just don't see that de-escalating.