Yes that’s true... at least with the Americans as much as was possible. I don’t think the Russians had such compunctions.
But if it came down to a brother vs brother internecine fight, and your kid was about to be shot by another...I think you would know what to do. The real issue is who controls some of these fancy weapons that could be used against politically disfavored groups....you know like neutron bombs that we are supposed to not have but that the components are probably available to put together. There was a Dem in control at WW1, WW2, the start of Korean War, the start of the Vietnam War. Truman dropped two a bombs on Japan in the name of shortening the war to save casualties(which was probably correct but since there was no attempt to stage an explosion in such a way that if high up Japanese officials could have watched...they might have agreed to end the war without the bombs being dropped on them I guess we’ll never know!). I can’t shake the notion that some just wanted to see the weapon go boom just to watch the results, especially Nagasaki which had a strong base community of Japanese Catholics that went up in smoke.(yeah just a coincidence, sure!)
My point being that the exact same reasoning might enter into the Democrat/Republican uniparty mindset to drop such weapons on troublesome Conservative enclaves in “order to limit the war and to limit the lives lost”...should such a conflict commence. They already have the mindset of population reduction and believe in the notion that a “few eggs need to be broken” to make an omelet. People are evil and they go to great evil lengths to hold onto an idea even if their world is being shattered about them. History teaches this as well.
I understand.
If we weren’t armed and if they could do so, they would round us up and haul us off. And they would do so with relish. And the ones who did not participate would look the other way. There would be very little objection from their side.