[_boffin_]

Personally, I think there’s too many variables that are spread across political, geographical, and technical to ever reach a Nash Equilibrium in a near peer / peer conflict scenario, unless it pertains to total distraction—that’s why I think MAD was so successful.

Would love to hear your thoughts

[somenameforme]

Might want to edit the word distraction into destruction, as it creates a somewhat confusing post at first otherwise. Beyond that, I think there was more to nukes than just mutually assured destruction. I think most world leaders are cowards. Just envision in your mind Joe Leader somehow being captured and being given a choice, which he somehow knew to be 100% honest. He could immediately and permanently end a conflict, and be spared. Or he would be killed on the spot. How many leaders are going to go, "No. This conflict is just and right. Do what you must, but I will not betray my country and conscience."?

They'd all be pissing their pants just to live another day. And so like any coward they'll happily make the "tough decision" to casually sacrifice millions of other peoples lives - billions if necessary, but they would not, in a million years, accept a scenario where they, themselves, might be killed. And nukes created just such a scenario. Drones, especially given the existence of extremely effective (but distance constrained) electronic warfare and other technology, doesn't intuitively threaten their own mortality. So I expect to see full steam ahead.