F-35 Suffers Overruns, GEN Fired, LockMart to pay $614 mil

[K. A. Pital]

The only possible contender within a reasonable timeframe to "fall apart and lose control of nukes" here is Pakistan.

[Simon_Jester]

China and Russia in a direct conflict with the USA pretty much means endgame (nuclear war), to Shep's glee (until his city gets obliterated along with mine), so I'm still wondering just why people keep talking about these conflicts as a possibility.

Because they just can't compel themselves to stop and think about it; Tom Clancy is too good at writing novels.

[Blayne]

Not really, if both sides maintain a policy of no first use then the war can remain conventional with the only nuclear arms used on the tactical ~kiloton level.

[Shroom Man 777]

What? The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to keep the other guy too afraid to use any force against you because as soon as two nuclear powers wage war, any war, conventional or nuclear, it WILL escalate. When one side starts getting its ass kicked, and one side WILL get its ass kicked, do you think they're honestly going to restrain themselves from escalating to bigger and bigger bombs? If conventional wars can be fought and won with a nuclear power not using its nuclear weapons (even if its getting its shit ruined), then the threat of using strategic nuclear weapons becomes a non-threat - it becomes a joke! In that case, nobody's going to give a fuck if Russia/America has nuclear weapons if they show themselves to be a bunch of pussies who can't use them! The possession of nuclear weapons becomes a moot point.

When nuclear powers end up going to war with each other, then something's gone horribly wrong and everyone's gone dumb. Those nukes exist for a reason!

[K. A. Pital]

Russia and USA have now both a First Use policy. Back in the day, the USSR had no first use whereas US had first use. Now Russia and USA both have enshrined First Use.

[adam_grif]

Whichever side uses it first isn't really a big deal so long as they both retain viable second strike capability. I'd venture to say that both sides being willing to launch first in the event of a war between nuclear powers makes it safer in that a conflict is less likely if both sides know that the other is willing and able.

As best I can tell, the only shooting conflict between states with nuclear arms was India v Pakistan about a decade ago. Both sides sought peace very quikcly for fear it would escelate to a nuclear exchange. This makes me confident that MAD is an effective deterence.