Wouldn't you know NATO would bring it's arms into nuclear readiness just when we have a doddering old fool with his trembling thumb on the nuclear button. It's the kind of multiple scenarios that lead to ordinary man made disasters but in this case ...you get the message.
It's simple. Deterrence type II.
1) NATO do something extremely provocative.
2) Russia increase its readiness (both of military and civilian defense).
3) NATO countries have the choice - a) believe and make few steps backs to defuse the situation. b) try to increase their own nuclear and civil defense readiness. c) read Russian preparations as "bluff", do not believe and continue extremely provocative behavior without increasing readiness.
4) if NATO choose "a" Russia won (in this episode of game achieved goals without actual nuclear attack). If NATO choose "b", and both Russia and NATO increasing their nuclear attacking and civil defense capabilities, and both prefer to fight and win, then the one who attack first and attack precisely won (but pay a significant price for his victory). c) if NATO countries do not believe in Russia's decisiveness - Ok, it's still good option for us. We calmly prepare and calmly attack your nuclear forces. Maximum attrition of your military units, minimal losses among your civilian population. And then, we suggest the peace, but now on the worse (for you) terms (like losing Alaska and California).
5) The USA (and, may be, France and UK) have few days of humanitarian pause to evacuate people from cities and think about Russian suggestionand what they can do with their badly damaged nuclear forces. They have a choice: - a) retaliate and attack Russian cities (counter value attack). It's clearly that it won't cause unacceptable damage, but then the Russian counter-value attack will virtually total annihilate US cities and infrastructure. So, it's practically suicidal, say nothing that deliberate attack against civiliab population is directly prohibited by the US nuclear doctrine. b) continue to fight by attacking military units, but avoiding attack of Russian cities. Then Russia eventually get rid of leftovers of the US Ohio-class submarines and win the war, may be, by attacking US-civilian infrastructure. c) accept quite generous Russian peaceful proposals.
We both have the understanding, that's why US don't do anything actually "extremely provocative" or, if they do, they'll accept our peace proposals after our first counter-force strike.
Do American lefties really rely on their democrat party loyalty more than the future of the freaking world?
And what is about the future of the freaking world? Why do you think that the future of BRICS-controlled world will be somehow worse, than the future of G7-controlled world? Are you really ready to die for homosexual marriages, drug-addiction epidemies, totalitarian control of your life and so on...?
