But the economics in the red states would lead to such bad living conditions that people would move, and then the spiral of no money, and no people to fight a war would lead to a very one sided victory.
The economics of the red states will pale in comparison to the question of where the weapons end up. There are a lot of nuclear weapons in deep red areas.
It’s more about the threat, isn’t it? If the other side believes you might be suicidally crazy, they might not want to fight the war, even if otherwise it would be a one sided victory.
The threat indeed, why we had a “nice” cold war, instead of the human ending one. I think both sides would have some amount of them. Not sure how that would play out since we’ve never had a large scalce war between two nuclear powers. Have only had small limited area, limited troop skirmishes. Like USSR/China near Mongolia and Pakistan/India at various border points. And even more limited is the India/China border skirmishes, that dont even have rifles, but rocks and sticks.
Don’t discount the ability of people to follow simple directions and manuals. Also, don’t discount that there are a large number of otherwise intelligent people who are maga. They have plenty of people who can do calculus, program in an IDE or on a circuit board, and carry on with all the other things you might view as impossible to ever happen at a republican convention. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and few are immune to propaganda. There seem to be a large number of people who have a peculiar weakness to ‘simple’ logic and strongmen blowing their own horn.
Anyway, without going into the weeds, let’s just take a moment and appreciate that there was a very long and large chain of command that carried out the literal listed example of a war crime on pete’s orders. There would absolutely be no issue for them to secure the weapons for a red government that told them to do such a thing.
But the economics in the red states would lead to such bad living conditions that people would move, and then the spiral of no money, and no people to fight a war would lead to a very one sided victory.
The economics of the red states will pale in comparison to the question of where the weapons end up. There are a lot of nuclear weapons in deep red areas.
What you say is true, but everybody has lost the game if nukes are used. Their states wont be inhabitable either.
It’s more about the threat, isn’t it? If the other side believes you might be suicidally crazy, they might not want to fight the war, even if otherwise it would be a one sided victory.
The threat indeed, why we had a “nice” cold war, instead of the human ending one. I think both sides would have some amount of them. Not sure how that would play out since we’ve never had a large scalce war between two nuclear powers. Have only had small limited area, limited troop skirmishes. Like USSR/China near Mongolia and Pakistan/India at various border points. And even more limited is the India/China border skirmishes, that dont even have rifles, but rocks and sticks.
Fortunately the chance of those yokels actually figuring out how to use one is pretty much zero. They’re complicated.
Don’t discount the ability of people to follow simple directions and manuals. Also, don’t discount that there are a large number of otherwise intelligent people who are maga. They have plenty of people who can do calculus, program in an IDE or on a circuit board, and carry on with all the other things you might view as impossible to ever happen at a republican convention. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and few are immune to propaganda. There seem to be a large number of people who have a peculiar weakness to ‘simple’ logic and strongmen blowing their own horn.
Anyway, without going into the weeds, let’s just take a moment and appreciate that there was a very long and large chain of command that carried out the literal listed example of a war crime on pete’s orders. There would absolutely be no issue for them to secure the weapons for a red government that told them to do such a thing.