Soldato
Not at all, I just find it arrogant to call US and Russia and it's citizens "The world" because they're the only two countries that would have been affected by it.
This nuclear apocalypse stuff from the cold war was nothing short of paranoia, there's no way the entire world (including every country and human being) was ever going to be wiped out like the headline writers like to pretend.
Had one of the countries launched an attack, you'd had an Hiroshima type event in one American city and one in one Russian city and that would have been it, it wouldn't last much longer after that. But this idea of the whole world being blown up by nuclear weapons is going too far.
No, that's not how it works at all. MAD works because there isn't a limited response scenario like that. You either use 'em or lose 'em - you have to assume it's a full attack and respond accordingly because if you wait you might lose the ability to launch a counterattack.....and that's you gone. That means even an apparent single incoming missile will trigger a full response - hence it being an effective deterrent. The only hope for restraint (and what many experts believe would happen) is that once all the military targets had been hit (which are top of the list) there would be a "time out" before the big city-killer nukes were launched at civilian population centers - and hopefully both sides would back down. Even then, the amount of fallout and destruction already inflicted would be unimaginable. The bombs dropped on Japan were tiny compared to the ones that would have been flying back and forth between the USSR/USA.
