Ask HN: Could a nuclear war happen in slow motion with one city nuked per week?
Wouldn't this be more likely than a nuclear war that instantly destroys the planet?
Briefly at first perhaps as a show of force. Most people would not want to go full mutual destruction. There could initially be some strategic strikes that hit small cities as a show of force.
I think the escalation risk would be countries that feel they are on the way out, have a history of not caring about their people and in effect feel they have nothing to lose. failing nations or governments going out with a bang vs. a whimper so to speak. One hit or fallout too close to a bordering nation could escalate quickly.
Another possibility for a first strike could be a few dozen stratospheric high altitude balloons carrying an EMP that wipe out electronics for a several countries or continents at the same time. I do not know how people might respond to that. There are also nuclear missile submarines all around the world that would be protected from initial kinetic and EMP damage.
I recall some discussion in fandom of the dissonance between that vision and the public propaganda lines of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and "Nuclear Winter". It seems to be a religious kind of debate where facts aren't welcome: There have been multiple nuclear weapons detonated in the last 80 years. Many still insist that even a single uncontrolled fission reaction is the equivalent of the end of the world.
I think one of the reasons why the nuclear strategy is what it is is around compliance. I don’t think a sustained long term nuclear exchange could go on without mutiny. It’s critical to launch everything before the capability gets destroyed or the guy in the silos refuse to act.
I could see it starting that way. One side gambles that they can nuke one city and the enemy will deescalate to avoid a full exchange. But the other side is compelled to respond in kind, knowing that they can't sit and do nothing, and hoping that that a one-for-one exchange will be the end of it. And it might be. But if not, then it must be an all-out exchange imo.
Think about it like this: someone punches you. You punch back. If they do nothing, then that's the end of it (for now). But if they do it again - are you going to stand there all day exchanging punches? You now know that they're determined to keep hitting you. Your best chance is to throw everything you have at them right now. That minimizes the damage to you. That's clearly true if you're stronger than them. But if you think about, it it's equally true if you're weaker.
FWIW, I think everyone should stop worrying about nuclear war. The US would win hands down and everyone knows it.
What?
(Ah, beliefs that grow "only in 'Murica")
This line of reasoning is really dangerous and I'm flabbergasted that there are people who take this stance. Really unfortunate that not just randoms on HN but likely also people in Washington might believe this BS.
But I don't think what I'm saying is that far from what's commonly accepted. Mutually assured destruction is the widely accepted doctrine. What I'm saying is I think it's mutually assured near destruction with a bias in favor of the US. I think this because of a combination of (a) how much each country can lose and still exist as a country; (b) how well their defenses will likely work (c) how many other nuclear countries will take their side etc.
That is just my very unscientific impression.
By "everyone knows it" what I really mean is it's hard for me to imagine how any other world leader could think that they are going to be the last one standing. Absent a massive shift in the balance of military spending, technology and many other things, the US remains the clear safe bet imo.