Why did nuclear powers not use nuclear weapons vs non-nuclear

UFOs

>>1970615
That would be mad.

>>1970624
What exactly can a non-nuclear state launch vs nuclear-armed state? Pebbles?

>>1970650
Said non-nuclear state is probably protected by another nuclear state.

>>1970615
>Why did nuclear powers not use nuclear weapons vs non-nuclear powers except for Japan in WW2? Like USSR in Afghanistan, USA in VIetnam or initial stages of Korean war, etc?
Because all those wars were proxy wars that would result in WW3 if Soviet Union or USA went REEEEEEEEEE

>>1970657
>>1970664
MAD because of a few dozen tactical nukes? Or perhaps a single strategic nuke? I doubt it.

>>1970615
Because since the second world war, most skirmishes have involved irregular combatants that deliberately mix in with civilian populations. Conventional warfare has died down, however in a few cases like Pakistan and India where their national forces butt heads they did threaten to use nukes.

Nukes are too unwieldy for the combat that has been occurring in the post modern era and if need be many modern militaries have conventional weapons with a payload large enough to really send big mushroom clouds up. They're just not what is called for the vast majority of the time.

US doesn't want nukes being used normally anyway, among other reasons of course + MAD etc etc

its hard to set up oil pipelines when your workers have to wear a full body suit.

the Korean War was the last time a nuclear armed state fought an enemy worth nuking that might not have been protected by an allied nuclear armed state

>>1970957
>>1970957
kek'd

>>1970687
>MAD because of a few dozen tactical nukes? Or perhaps a single strategic nuke? I doubt it.

Oh well if it *probably* won't wipe out humanity I guess that's fine.

>>1970615
Both powers invaded other countries on the pretense of well being, to "safeguard for democracy" or what have you.

now imagine if they nuked those countries, it would contradict their reason for invading them in the first place. if you were a citizen of the nuked country, you would probably then be a fan of the other side.

>>1970775
pakistan threatened to nuke india, but indians are expected to be all passive aggressive about it

>>1970664
Not true at all. Nuking Hanoi was a very real possibility and Nixon didn't do it only because Anerica wanted to be seen as the good guys in Vietnam.

As for Afghanistan, what the hell is there to nuke?

>>1970994
>Nuking Hanoi was a very real possibility
No, it wasn't. Nixon was even more afraid of Soviet and Chinese involvement than LBJ was which is why he took active diplomatic measures to keep them from becoming directly involved before he enacted Operation Linebacker. Not to mention, there was no strategic value to nuking North Vietnam and Nixon and every single one of his military advisors knew this.

>>1970687
Only a few nukes being set off at once will plunge the world into nuclear winter so it would be MAD

>>1971008
>Only a few nukes being set off at once will plunge the world into nuclear winter so it would be MAD
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this board and is most certainly in the running for most incorrect. If "only a few nukes being set off at once" caused nuclear winter, we should have experienced that before 1960.

>>1971002
Just call him Johnson. LBJ is Lebron James.

>>1971008
Is this a troll? Over 2000 nukes have been used in tests, by your logic we should be dead now.

>>1971069
One at a time is not the same as all at once. Plus, most of the cloud in the nuclear winter scenario comes from the cities burning if I'm not mistaken. Other anon is wrong that "only a few" would do it, but models predict a winter by around 100 nukes, like you would see in a little war between India and Pakistan.

>>1971073
>all at once
>only a few at once

So which is it now you retard?

>>1971078
>Other anon is wrong

>>1971073

I know the study you are referring to, it's been rebuked, much like most of the nuclear winter nonsense. Nuclear winter can happen, but it requires extremely improbable circumstances which would fly in the face of nuclear/deterrent theorising for the last 70 years.

There's a great discussion of that study in the /k/ archives.