> Why would anyone trade an EMP for all their cities?
ICMBs were a theoretical threat. Cold War doctrine had a more realistic (and less apocalyptic) WWIII that would be fought by tactical nukes and tanks through Europe.
We will have countries against each other fighting for their borders but world war is v unlikely in our lifetime.
We love our cheap goods, cheap-ish energy and ability to change presidents and prime ministers.
Yes China, North Korea and Russia banding against the rest of the world is a real threat but China has shown it is selfish too and cares more about its economy.
WW1 was a pretty inefficient war, WW2 got better weapons and communication infra, but modern war fare is seriously destructive.
Intercontinental missiles fired from stealth submarines with nuclear payloads that break apart in air into 20 little payloads that then destroy an entire city 1000s of kms.
Modern warfare doesn’t need armies of millions of men. Whoever can best see their enemy via satellites and oceanic array, direct the most destructive energy using missiles and drones decapitates their enemy.
One nuclear warhead possesses multiple times the energy spent on both world wars combined.
> Yes China, North Korea and Russia banding against the rest of the world is a real threat but China has shown it is selfish too and cares more about its economy.
I really want to believe that. But the same logic did not stop the first world war.
In that case, why both sides of the Cold War spent fortunes on conventional forces along the Iron Curtain?
Like yes it is playing with (nuclear) fire, and maybe they were wrong, but there plenty of professionals who, maybe biased by their positions, who felt the need to get ready for limited nuclear war. And I'm not really convinced either side would want to risk destroying human civilization over Frankfurt.
> Also, there is no difference between a tactical and strategic nuke from an escalatory perspective. Once the genie is out, it’s out.
I mean, why? Why shouldn't tactical and strategic be separate steps on the ladder?
There are people who argue that there are ways to keep limited nuclear warfare limited. [0] I think the RAND institute also published some study on it not outright rejecting the idea but I can't find it atm.
ICMBs were a theoretical threat. Cold War doctrine had a more realistic (and less apocalyptic) WWIII that would be fought by tactical nukes and tanks through Europe.