No, it wouldn't generally have made sense to attack a member of a powerful common security agreement that is outside your sphere of influence when other nations are available to exert your power over instead. Admittedly, if that alliance has nukes it is even dumber. But what that means now that NATO has been/is being expanded to Putin's doorstep is that there is an even greater incentive to solidify one's power over a nation to prevent it from joining, which is what we have seen in Ukraine.
Which is why we should let everybody into NATO that wants to be in NATO (it would be nice if they could actually help when the vodka hits the fan, but a lot of current NATO members are way behind on this point so it would be stupid to prevent new ones on it), screw what Moscow thinks on subject.
I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.
This meme is old.
The reason you have to have enough nukes to destroy multiple enemies several times over is because the main target in a nuclear war is the enemy's nuclear weapons. If the enemy launches a successful first strike you need to have enough nukes and delivery systems to retain a retaliation capability. Not to mention you have to retain a second-strike capability in the even of an exchange to begin with.
So if we only have exactly enough nukes to destroy the enemy, and they launch a first-strike and knock out maybe 1/3 of them (whoever strikes first in nuclear was has a major advantage), then where does that leave us? Nuclear strategy is much more complicated then is commonly perceived in pop culture.
In my view this is correct. I concur.
Also correct.
