The advertising of those who want to make a living from weapons production and get gold teeth at the expense of the state works. The Russians and Americans have enough nuclear weapons to destroy everyone. Therefore, there can be no war. Everything else is the imagination of fools.
The prevailing, evidence-based consensus among military strategists, historians, and political scientists is that no rational actor believes a "full-scale" war between major nuclear powers can be "won" in the traditional sense, due to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
The Reality of "Full-Scale" Nuclear War
Total Annihilation: A full-scale exchange (e.g., US vs. Russia) would result in the destruction of both nations, massive casualties, and potential global catastrophe.
No "Winner": As Ronald Reagan famously stated, "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought". This sentiment is generally shared among the top leadership of the major nuclear powers.
Then why do we have militant posturing at the Security Conference in Munich? Is this just propaganda action to move more money to the producers of weapons?
We have accurately summarized the fundamental consensus on nuclear strategy: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."
The intense, often belligerent rhetoric, particularly at events like the Munich Security Conference, exists in a tense space between this reality of strategic deterrence (not wanting to die) and geopolitical competition (wanting to win on the world stage).
Based on current analysis and recent conferences, here is why the posturing occurs, categorized by its true intents:
1. Coercive Diplomacy and "Gray Zone" Conflicts
While direct, full-scale war is considered irrational, major powers believe in "limited" or "below-the-threshold" conflict.
The Goal: To use threats to make the opponent back down before a crisis escalates.
The Action: Militant posturing (like nuclear signaling) is designed to create fear and uncertainty in the opponent’s mind, coercing them into concessions regarding proxy wars (like Ukraine), territorial disputes (Arctic/Baltics), or influence in the Global South.
2. Domestic Audience Signaling and Political Survival
In many regimes, including China, foreign policy is domestic policy.
The Goal: To appear strong, patriotic, and decisive to their own citizens.
The Action: Leaders use aggressive rhetoric to boost their legitimacy, demonstrate that they are defending national honor, and suppress internal dissent by blaming outside forces for domestic problems.
3. The "Security Dilemma" and Conventional Re-arming
The breakdown of arms control treaties has created a "race to secure" environment.
The Goal: To convince allies that they are protected and to compel adversaries to spend money on defense rather than other sectors.
The Action: By painting a scenario of imminent danger, leaders justify massive increases in defense budgets. This is not just propaganda; it is a calculated effort to force competitors into an expensive, unsustainable arms race.
4. The Industrial-Military Lobby
While not the sole driver of geopolitical tensions, the financial incentive for the defense industry is significant.
The Goal: Continued, increased, and predictable funding for defense contractors.
The Action: Intense lobbying and public relations efforts emphasize threats, ensuring that lawmakers are convinced that "peace through strength"—meaning higher defense spending—is necessary.
5. Managing the "Unthinkable"
Ironically, militant posturing is used to prevent full-scale war.
The Goal: To convince the other side that you are willing to take high risks, thus making them more cautious.
The Action: The rhetoric is meant to show that the "deterrence" is still active.
Summary: The posturing in Munich is a mix of propaganda, legitimate competition for regional influence, and strategic signaling designed to keep "competitions" limited, while maneuvering for advantage short of total destruction. The military-industrial complex certainly profits from this, but the underlying motivation is a complex, often dangerous, game of high-stakes bluffing.
The game of high-stakes bluffing is the only job that the entire Lithuanian elite knows how to do, regardless of party. The only difference between these people is that there is competition, whoever appears more decisive, will shout louder.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą