Of course. I grew up in the '60s and '70s. I've been through something like this before, crawling under my desk at school and hearing about how the Soviet army was bigger than ours.
If missiles launch then both sides get damaged so badly that conventional attacks or invasions can't happen. The US is too big, too far away, and protected by oceans, so the only possible attack on US soil is missiles, and if that happens the other side will cease to exist as a military power.
I'm sure you understand my point that as long as the war in Ukraine, or a Chinese attack on Taiwan, remain conventional (non-nuclear) the damage will happen far away from American soil. If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off.
I understand your points all too well and no doubt your arguments make sense.
"If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off."
Exactly, trouble is escalation can occur though some overly noisey side issue or one that's hardly related. In an ideal world a trigger point can be known, in a noisy one randomness makes the point much less certain.
My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea.
Back to my original comment in this thread… anything seems possible. But no amount of worrying or blog posts will affect those possible futures. So for me the most rational choice is not to worry about it.
I prefer to reflect on what a Buddhist doctor told me: whatever will kill me has already happened.
> My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea.
The problem is this can slip into appeasement, which is how we stumbled into the last two world wars. You have to be credibly ready to end a war. But have the discipline not to start them.
How did appeasement trigger the 1WW? Serbia should not have agreed to extradict the murderers, since they got invaded anyway?