I would suggest that if those other forms of war were possible, they'd have already occurred. The world and it's leaders fear the dangers of massive nuclear exchange. The problem is that once one warhead is launched, the assumption on the receiving state must be that others will follow and so there is always an impetus to retaliate massively to prevent the loss of all your warheads in the (supposed) incoming first strike of which your first warhead is but the precursor. Fail to launch your warheads means they will be caught on the ground and will be vulnerable if restraint is shown. This is nuclear strategy 101. No one really believes that limited nuclear war is possible except those who wish to live in never-never land IMHO.
Both the US Military and the Soviet Military and politicians lived in never never land then. As both sides understood concepts like 2nd and 3rd strikes, hostage cities, timed submarine attacks, levels of escalation, and both sides had direct lines to each other in order to communicate with words rather than massive world ending strikes- that of course both countries knew weren't feasible as an actual response.
What you are trying to tell me is that the US and the USSR who both embraced this strategy, were not actually embracing it. That President Carter actually didn't sign presidential directive 59. interesting position.
I think you have fallen into the classic "If I believe it so do the majority of people" hyperbole conundrum. hence "no one really believes" Actually a lot of people as early as the 1950's realized that one city being blown up shouldn't trigger ending the world. So a lot of people believe what the research says, I am one of them. And MAD strategy quickly evolved to more of a gray rather than a black and white absolute as more nukes were produced, more delivery systems created, and more early warning systems utilized.
As I have pointed out now, several times but it appears you cannot grasp, deterrence is not about using your missiles, its about possessing them and threatening to use them. Your objective is to DETER your enemy from attacking you. You can achieve that with considerably smaller numbers of warheads than what some here seem to feel comfortable with. India and Pakistan achieve that with only tens of warheads, not hundreds, not thousands, not even more. Do you seem a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent?
And you don't seem to comprehend that deterrence extends post attack as well, to deter follow on attacks. Further more, pointing to the indian subcontinent is an interesting cherry picked example seeing as the super power accumulated over 50,000 warheads during the cold war arms race. Lets ignore the whale to look at the minnow
The next issue with deterrence, and I think others will agree here. is deterrence is not just about keeping the peace with a bored enemy, its also about keeping the peace with a highly determined enemy always probing for weakness. Its meant to survive a determined foe too.
We do indeed. Nuclear strategists will also point out that while they talk about "limited nuclear war" what they know in the back of their minds is that reality will be more like Kahn's "wargasm" than the end of WWII.
This is awesome, we can use expert opinion that goes unsaid? So for example in the backs of the minds of Russian Nuclear missile designers they all know the nukes are duds. Thus all Russian nukes are duds. This is going to make arguing things a lot easier now since we can claim the opposite of what someone actually said.
So, how many nuclear warheads does the DPRK possess? Is that sufficient to deter the US from attempting "regime change"? If so, don't you think that is sufficient, despite the massive numbers of nuclear warheads the USA has compared to North Korea? North Korea doesn't have to attack, it merely needs to possess to deter American attack.
of course the US didn't attack when DPRK had zero nukes. On that note, the US has a lot of enemies, and we rarely invade... and they don't have nukes either. The US never invaded libya, or Serbia, or Iran. None of whom have nukes. How did they deter us?
DPRK doesn't possess deterrence either, which goes back to the idea that credible numbers and delivery systems matter, and must resist a determined foe. If DPRK has 10 warheads and we know where they all are and can be taken out pre-emptively, then they have zero deterrence. using one means losing the other 9 very quickly, especially as they couldn't be used to hurt US nuclear forces. It wouldn't stop B-2 bombers, Cruise missiles, SLBMs, or ICBMs. essentially North Korea's thin "nuclear umbrella" only "works" because its never rained. It couldn't stop or even slow a determined attack by the US.
lastly, thanks to the US not being stupid, if war broke out with North Korea, the Nukes would be top priority. If the US couldn't get them conventionally and feared their use, they would get them with nuclear warheads. incredibly this wouldn't end in world ending mutually assured destruction, but would end in a limited nuclear engagement. Something you say is impossible.
