Answer: The short answer is no—there's no real “winning” in a nuclear conflict between powers. A first strike might aim to cripple an opponent's ability to retaliate, but the reality is that most nuclear-armed nations maintain a “second-strike capability.” This means they have enough hidden or mobile nuclear weapons (like submarines or stealth bombers) to launch a devastating counterattack even after being hit.
Historically, the Cold War highlighted the dangers of this strategy. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union feared a first strike from the other, leading to an arms race and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was simple but terrifying: if one side launched, both would be annihilated.
Even today, experts argue that the risks of escalation, global fallout, and catastrophic humanitarian consequences make any potential “benefit” of a first strike meaningless. It's a grim reminder of why diplomacy and disarmament are so crucial.
Meaningless to who?
From Russia’s POV, during the cold War, the West losing everything counts as a win.