alt Hacker NewsCan we think on the next step then? A nuclear nation invades and annexes territories from a non-nuclear one, given the premise to avoid wars between nuclear powers by proxy it means that a nuclear nation can then invade and annex anything in their surroundings with little repercussion, since we want to avoid any escalation towards nuclear powers at war. They settle for peace, the nuclear power gets what they want, stops for a while to re-arm, and then pushes to another non-nuclear nation.
What would stop other nations from pursuing their own nukes if that's the case? It also would make any military alliance such as NATO moot, there are only 3 nuclear powers in the alliance, any other country in the alliance which gets invaded by a nuclear power wouldn't be able to call for help since we want to avoid nuclear confrontation.
This only spirals more and more, countries without nukes are at a massive disadvantage, they will naturally seek nukes to protect themselves, just increasing the odds that a nuclear exchange will happen by sheer statistics.
> This is why I will be voting for the candidate who was not endorsed by Dick Cheney.
Proving my point that you don't think very rationally at all.
You're claiming a compromised peace in the Donbas could spiral into a nuclear exchange.
I'm claiming that continuing the proxy war between a jingoistic US government and a (probably) jingoistic Russian government could spiral into a nuclear exchange, and that the US government should be less jingoistic. Being jingoistic doesn't reduce the chance of nuclear war.
I doubt we're going to convince each other, so I would challenge readers of the two claims to decide for themselves what makes more sense for preventing nuclear armageddon.