I have always been outraged by an episode in the life of American President Kennedy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he asked his generals if, in the event of a nuclear war, they would guarantee that not a single Soviet missile landed on American soil. Apparently, at that time, the generals were more honest people and did not warrant such stupidity. This was the reason for reaching a peaceful solution to the crisis. From there, without understanding why, Kennedy was proclaimed a peacemaker.
But logic asks what if his generals had ensured that America would have remained untouched and no Soviet bomb would have reached it? Would Kennedy have sent his missiles around the world then?
Now let me ask again, was Kennedy a peacemaker or a man with a good instinct for self-preservation?
Currently the situation is the same. The very idea of dividing nuclear weapons into tactical and strategic is insane. Because tactical nuclear strikes mean only one thing – Europe to burn to ashes, or at least to be infected so well that it ceases to exist as a place to live in the next 50 thousand years. On the other hand, the non-use of a Strategic Nuclear Weapon means the following – America should not fall under a nuclear attack.
We go back to the question that Kennedy asked, which we can paraphrase: Can we fuck the mother of the world and not be affected? Well no. Regardless of the propaganda. Regardless of the extremely stupid attempts to divide nuclear weapons into some subcategories and to claim that one can be used and the other cannot be used.
The strongest argument to legitimize a nuclear apocalypse is… the claim, that's right – claim that Russia is bluffing!
Why? Do you have at least one argument in favor of the absolutely ridiculous claim that Russia is bluffing? Maybe no rockets – run out of chips from Ukrainian laundries, no nuclear warheads – they are stuck, there are no trained specialists (orcs, what to do with them) who can deliver the nuclear cargo wherever they want? No submarines with nuclear warheads? And finally, Russia does not have the courage to wage war, because we know from history that Russia has always turned its tail and eaten fart on the battlefield? Or did she not fight back?
Or you rely on the noisy claims of several grant offices with the loud name institutes for all kinds of liberal and democratic things there, that the Russians are bluffing because… did those from the offices think so? Are you really betting your children's lives on this card? Do you really think a nuclear power can destroy itself without it deciding to use its most powerful weapons?
I repeat. Do you think you can beat an armed man to death without him, in his utter despair and pain, filling your clever, and why not your beautiful, head with lead? Do you think the end of World War II if the Germans had produced an atomic bomb? What if the Japanese had it? What if the Americans had it? Oops, the Americans had it and you saw what they did to them. And without being threatened with destruction. And at a time when they were winning the war. They did it only because this act was guaranteed to be unrequited.
Not so today. Whatever they tell you, the division of nuclear weapons into strategic and tactical is only a matter of semantics.