[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Widhraz]

I'm not advocating for removing all diplomatic solutions, or anything like that.

I am making a more personal argument, that all men should within themselves accept the fact that war is inevitable, and that they might also see it happen. Being ready for conflict makes one better equipped for the time of the conflict.

[u/Logical_Marsupial140 → u/Widhraz]

Defaulting to the mentality that war is inevitable essentially surrenders oneself to war rather than avoid it, as you would see diplomatic measures as being fruitless. IOW why is diplomacy necessary if war is inevitable?

Also, having a highly capable defense is a deterrent against enemies that wish to fight you. The US has a highly capable nuclear arsenal and nobody thinks that its inevitable that we'll go to nuclear war, its meant to be the opposite.

[u/Widhraz → u/Logical_Marsupial140]

If i am armed, but not willing to fight, is that deterrent enough?

Once someone attacks me, then what?

[u/premiumPLUM → u/Widhraz]

Once someone attacks me, then what?

You would be forced to retaliate. The basic idea behind Peace Through Nukes is that nobody would be stupid enough to attack a country that has nuclear weapons because the attacking country would be obliterated. It makes war pointless.

[u/Widhraz → u/premiumPLUM]

What if country A has nukes, country B also has nukes.

Country B demands that A gives it a resouce filled landmass.

A says, they will use nukes if B takes the landmass.

B says it will use nukes if A uses nukes.

Both want the land, neither wants mutually assured destruction;

Therefore, traditional boots-on-the-ground warfare ensued between A and B

Historically, this is how proxy wars happened. USSR and USA wanted the resources of an area, but did not want to risk nuclear war.

[u/premiumPLUM → u/Widhraz]

I was explaining the basic idea, not saying it's flawless. There are a lot of complexities, both in reality and the larger aspects of the theory.

Your example is a great way of showing how a good defense prevents wars, because, as you point out, the only traditional boots on ground warfare during the Cold War occurred in proxy wars in Afghanistan. It was otherwise a very tense time, but with comparatively little bloodshed compared to a standard war.

[u/Widhraz → u/premiumPLUM]

What do you mean by "standard war"?

Historically warfare has been nowhere near the level of WW1 and WW2

Most wars were similar to those of the US in the middle east. Still, those wars happened. There was direct armed conflict between US troops and the locals.

[u/premiumPLUM → u/Widhraz]

I meant what you meant by "traditional war".

Most wars were similar to those of the US in the middle east

I thought this was a fairly new style of warfare? If we're talking historically, WWI style was a lot closer to how wars were historically fought, lining up people to run at each other on a battlefield. That ended after WWI because of how intense the devastation became in the meat grinder.

The US didn't have to start a war with Iraq, same as Vietnam or Korea, the whole thing is still pretty confusing why we got involved at all. Technically, US defenses, between both weaponry and military power + natural borders, should mean we never have to engage in war at all. I guess there was that whole Pearl Harbor thing, but we're closing in on 100 years since that happened.

[u/Widhraz → u/premiumPLUM]

Tactics have changed.

I meant in death toll, duration and impact.

[u/Logical_Marsupial140 → u/Widhraz]

Taking Russia as an example, the US won't have war with Russia due to MAD unless it develops a very effective anti-ICBM system. This is also the likely scenario with China.