[MCF]

Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?

[Zhang Fei]

[Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?]

---

Is China willing to have 1000 its largest metro areas hit simultaneously by nukes in retaliation? China’s leader wants a more prominent place in history. He wants fame, not infamy. And like every other politician, he’s keenly interest in his personal physical survival and the survival of kith and kin. Against a nuclear power with retaliatory capability, there is zero chance he will use nukes. And that logic also applies to the US and Russia. National leaders are ego-driven individuals whose principal concern is to improve his standing in history. Starting a nuclear war that kills half his population is the route to eternal infamy. Any war between nuclear powers with city-killing nukes will be conducted by conventional means. It’s a lot like what happened during WWII with respect to chemical weapons. Both sides had them, but refrained from using them for fear of retaliation, even up to the point where one side surrendered unconditionally.

[Mariner]

“Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?”

The much bigger question is whether China is willing to have every single one of their cities and military installations destroyed in the vain effort to challenge US power is a real way?

That’s their strategic calculus. They know if they use nukes, they cease to exist. And the only benefit they receive is the destruction of a couple of dozen US cities.

And that’s IF THEY SHOOT FIRST. If we shoot first, our counterforce capability is enough to negate their retaliation to maybe 10% of their arsenal.

[WellyP]

Three Gorges Dam!

[FLT-bird]

Do I get to choose which ones?