Thread by @CherylRofer

Every time I read something like this

-->We believe China is expanding its nuclear forces in part to maintain a deterrent that can survive a US first strike and retaliate in sufficient numbers to defeat US missile defenses.

I stop in my tracks. 1/

armscontrolwonk.com/archive/121234…

There is a certain value of "rationality" for which this makes sense.

The point of a deterrent nuclear force is to survive an adversary's first strike and strike back. That prevents the adversary from making that first strike, according to deterrence theory. 2/

But I can't help reading it another way.

Why would anyone start a nuclear war?

A first strike intended to disable China's nuclear forces, even before this expansion, would involve hundreds of nuclear weapons. Those hundreds of nuclear weapons would damage the US as well. 3/

Fallout, smoke, even without a return strike by China. Which, of course, would come. Nuclear damage to the US as well.

Likewise, why would China strike the US? The same reasoning applies. 4/

Yes, imagine your scenarios of defending Taiwan or a skirmish in the South China Sea. Would that be worth a smoky sky for everyone, greatly increased cancers, difficulty growing crops, and probably worse? Is anything worth that? 5/

We have to find better ways to resolve those differences. 6/6