You’re really listing all the reasons why you would never risk a coventional war. As long as we aren’t shooting at each other, we have a chance to deal with miscalculations, accidents, Soviet palace intrigue and strategic aspirations. In a war, those same things lead to the launch of a nuclear weapon.
In all the simulations we ran, nuclear war began, either as the result of a deliberate first strike, or as the result of a miscalculation or misunderstanding within days or weeks of war breaking out.
I know there was talk of viable conventional war, but I think it was partly motivated by budget concerns, or proposed by the kinda guys who were satirized in Dr Strangelove. Mineshafts and mental gymnastics.
We used to run these simulations regularly in Denmark too, and the results were always the same:
Correct. There were simulations where troops were being overrun on either side, and that side opted for a tactical nuclear strike (small nukes) on their own soil, to kill everyone on the line and stop the attack.
The idea was that using them defensively on your own side of the line (and killing a bunch of your own troops) was safer, and might serve as a warning to the other side, but in every simulation it lead to the other side being more willing to use their own tactical nukes, so it became tit for tat, and at some point someone launched the big ones.
The only logical nuclear doctrine, is that we must be completely sure of what the consequences will be, before we ever act against a nuclear power, and that still applies. There is no room for guessing or hoping, because if we get it wrong, we all die.
In a conventional war there are absolutely no guarantees, at that point we start to rely on assumptions and aspirations that may be false, and are subject to change at a moments notice. That’s really the opposite of a rational nuclear doctrine.
(Also I just wanna say I really appreciate your posts)
