Roger, thanks for reading and many thanks for your comments. Here are my thoughts. I welcome your rejoinder.
True, your questions are unanswered. Only Xi and his inner circle know what's going on. My hypothesis -- Biden and company are being tested -- is only that because I'm not in the inner circle. :-)
It seems to me that taking out the leadership that ordered an initial nuclear strike would be considered escalatory (unless that leadership's first shot was aimed at our leadership). In any event, thinking about the problem as a leader who puts the welfare of his citizens first (i.e., not as a macho street brawler), the prolongation of hostilities, by any means, only puts them at risk. Does that mean de facto surrender (standing down)? It would depend on the stakes. If it meant de facto surrender of Ukraine or Taiwan, I might bluff retaliation of some kind (even escalatory) to see where it gets me. But in the end, I wouldn't put Ukraine or Taiwan above the lives of tens of millions of Americans. On the other hand, if the stakes were the subjection of Americans to a foreign dictatorship, I would have already put in place electronic and missile defenses that would save the lives of the vast majority of Americans (if that's possible), then order a devastating counter-strike that would deny the ability of the bad guys to answer in kind. Some would call that a destabilizing strategy. I would call it a winning one, given the alternative of living under the thumb of a foreign dictator. I don't have the tickets to know if we have the necessary defenses, but if I were king we would have acquired them long ago.
On the other hand, the choice between living under a foreign dictatorship and the one that is developing in the U.S. is no longer as stark as it was, even 15 years ago.
Unanswered: why so many, and why, suddenly, now? Are they to fill gaps in intel/surveillance antecedent to something else? Could be a very concerning precursor to something else...
Also: If U.S. territory attacked with nuclear weapon, U.S. must retaliate, lest it announce "open season" on potential attackers. Retaliation need not be escalatory. For example, precision strikes aimed to take out the leadership that ordered the nuclear attack. Retaliatory strikes can be kinetic, non-kinetic, by assassins, or ...but they must be recognized as retaliatory, and they must be effective (or continued until effective). RWB
Roger, thanks for reading and many thanks for your comments. Here are my thoughts. I welcome your rejoinder.
True, your questions are unanswered. Only Xi and his inner circle know what's going on. My hypothesis -- Biden and company are being tested -- is only that because I'm not in the inner circle. :-)
It seems to me that taking out the leadership that ordered an initial nuclear strike would be considered escalatory (unless that leadership's first shot was aimed at our leadership). In any event, thinking about the problem as a leader who puts the welfare of his citizens first (i.e., not as a macho street brawler), the prolongation of hostilities, by any means, only puts them at risk. Does that mean de facto surrender (standing down)? It would depend on the stakes. If it meant de facto surrender of Ukraine or Taiwan, I might bluff retaliation of some kind (even escalatory) to see where it gets me. But in the end, I wouldn't put Ukraine or Taiwan above the lives of tens of millions of Americans. On the other hand, if the stakes were the subjection of Americans to a foreign dictatorship, I would have already put in place electronic and missile defenses that would save the lives of the vast majority of Americans (if that's possible), then order a devastating counter-strike that would deny the ability of the bad guys to answer in kind. Some would call that a destabilizing strategy. I would call it a winning one, given the alternative of living under the thumb of a foreign dictator. I don't have the tickets to know if we have the necessary defenses, but if I were king we would have acquired them long ago.
On the other hand, the choice between living under a foreign dictatorship and the one that is developing in the U.S. is no longer as stark as it was, even 15 years ago.
Unanswered: why so many, and why, suddenly, now? Are they to fill gaps in intel/surveillance antecedent to something else? Could be a very concerning precursor to something else...
Also: If U.S. territory attacked with nuclear weapon, U.S. must retaliate, lest it announce "open season" on potential attackers. Retaliation need not be escalatory. For example, precision strikes aimed to take out the leadership that ordered the nuclear attack. Retaliatory strikes can be kinetic, non-kinetic, by assassins, or ...but they must be recognized as retaliatory, and they must be effective (or continued until effective). RWB