Return to Answer

Because if there is a̶n̶y̶ too much doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden.

Keep also mind that the people releasing the counterstrike will also know that their families and friends will be among the victims of the strike - this is especially true of people in missile silos and subs, seeing as a first strike will spew radiation all over those places and home harbors.

So all in all, you start with a documented intent to retaliate, drill people exhaustively to carry it out, with the knowledge that this vow of retaliation is key to keeping the peace. Then, as per this question, you expect that all to be thrown out the door, and meekly submit, just when your country has been mortally wounded by what is, after all, a horrible, genocidal, attack using prohibited-use weapons by its enemy???.

I wouldn't bet on that as the attacker and that is precisely the point.

Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

And, no, decision matrices are not a good way to reason about this. Else the attacker could do the math and launch, secure that game theory has their back.

p.s. Handing over final say to computers is a really bad idea (saying that as a programmer myself).

Because if there is any too much doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden.

Keep also mind that the people releasing the counterstrike will also know that their families and friends will be among the victims of the strike - this is especially true of people in missile silos and subs, seeing as a first strike will spew radiation all over those places and home harbors.

So all in all, you start with a documented intent to retaliate, drill people exhaustively to carry it out, with the knowledge that this vow of retaliation is key to keeping the peace. Then, as per this question, you expect that all to be thrown out the door, and meekly submit, just when your country has been mortally wounded by what is, after all, a horrible, genocidal, attack using prohibited-use weapons by its enemy???.

I wouldn't bet on that as the attacker and that is precisely the point.

Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

And, no, decision matrices are not a good way to reason about this. Else the attacker could do the math and launch, secure that game theory has their back.

p.s. Handing over final say to computers is a really bad idea (saying that as a programmer myself).

Because if there is a̶n̶y̶ too much doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden.

Keep also mind that the people releasing the counterstrike will also know that their families and friends will be among the victims of the strike - this is especially true of people in missile silos and subs, seeing as a first strike will spew radiation all over those places and home harbors.

So all in all, you start with a documented intent to retaliate, drill people exhaustively to carry it out, with the knowledge that this vow of retaliation is key to keeping the peace. Then, as per this question, you expect that all to be thrown out the door, and meekly submit, just when your country has been mortally wounded by what is, after all, a horrible, genocidal, attack using prohibited-use weapons by its enemy???.

I wouldn't bet on that as the attacker and that is precisely the point.

Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

And, no, decision matrices are not a good way to reason about this. Else the attacker could do the math and launch, secure that game theory has their back.

Because if there is a̶n̶y̶ too much doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden.

Keep also mind that the people releasing the counterstrike will also know that their families and friends will be among the victims of the strike - this is especially true of people in missile silos and subs, seeing as a first strike will spew radiation all over those places and home harbors.

So all in all, you start with a documented intent to retaliate, drill people exhaustively to carry it out, with the knowledge that this vow of retaliation is key to keeping the peace. Then, as per this question, you expect that all to be thrown out the door, and meekly submit, just when your country has been mortally wounded by what is, after all, a horrible, genocidal, attack using prohibited-use weapons by its enemy???.

I wouldn't bet on that as the attacker and that is precisely the point.

Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

And, no, decision matrices are not a good way to reason about this. Else the attacker could do the math and launch, secure that game theory has their back.

p.s. Handing over final say to computers is a really bad idea (saying that as a programmer myself).

Because if there is any doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden. Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

Because if there is a̶n̶y̶ too much doubt that the targeted country will retaliate, then the aggressor may very well try their luck. Making the whole situation a lot more unstable, and dangerous, than your moral objections' starting condition, a stable MAD.

There are plenty of human, and animal, analogs of "dont-f..k-with-me" which are successful at keeping the peace because one side pre-expresses an "irrational" intent to react hyper-aggressively, even suicidally so, when attacked. Look no further than the cute and cuddly honeybee.

Second, the notion that a nuclear war would mean human extinction, while it certainly has entered popular belief through the nuclear winter theory - first postulated at a time when there were 10x more nukes - is rather unproven.

That it would mean mass deaths at billion+ scale is a lot more credible.

Last, the way this question is framed seems to absolve the initial aggressor state of any ecological damage of its own. Their "massive strike" asked about would just as likely move the needle quite a bit towards nuclear winter scenarios, making this a shared guilt, rather than solely the retaliating state's karmic burden.

Keep also mind that the people releasing the counterstrike will also know that their families and friends will be among the victims of the strike - this is especially true of people in missile silos and subs, seeing as a first strike will spew radiation all over those places and home harbors.

So all in all, you start with a documented intent to retaliate, drill people exhaustively to carry it out, with the knowledge that this vow of retaliation is key to keeping the peace. Then, as per this question, you expect that all to be thrown out the door, and meekly submit, just when your country has been mortally wounded by what is, after all, a horrible, genocidal, attack using prohibited-use weapons by its enemy???.

I wouldn't bet on that as the attacker and that is precisely the point.

Absent a "massive strike", smaller strikes will quite likely be answered with a somewhat bigger retaliatory counterstrike, playing a game of tit-for-tat ratcheting until all hell breaks lose or one side desists.

And, no, decision matrices are not a good way to reason about this. Else the attacker could do the math and launch, secure that game theory has their back.