Hey, nuclear war IS a risk. And if Great Powers can compete with proxy conflicts, cyberattacks, attacks on C4istar assets in orbit (possibly leading to a Kessler syndrome type of deal), subversion, they remain capable of competing with conventional forces in support of objectives short of conquering the other's home territory. A blockade to strangle one into submission, a fight over a third party territory, a proxy conflict where both sides provide direct combat troops a la Korea (yup, brought it back, what?), etc. Neither side goes nuclear while they both think they can win the more limited conflict, and if one wins, the other concedes defeat, knowing the alternative was worse. Or, a little more complicated, they in fact bluster with their nuclear weapons, demand the other side stand-down, the other promises retaliation in the event of a launch, maybe other Great Powers weigh in, there is a horrible standoff where people wonder if the end is truly nigh, followed by a humiliating stand-down/negotiated settlement.
There are lots of ways things could shake out, without requiring either a nuclear exchange or an end to great power competition. The War of the Spanish Succession ended without the Habsburgs, Bourbons, Hohenzollerns, or Stuart (soon to be Hanoverians) being toppled. And yet it was still a great power/crisis war conflict.
And the Defense Production Act and other accouterments of a formal declaration of war would give a Trump Administration broad powers to commandeer and restructure the industrial base, and a way to press a Republican Congress to massively increase spending. I mean, barring a nuclear exchange, both powers could hypothetically come off of it better off, regardless of who "won".
Again, not recommending it as a course of action, just trying to fully explore all the possibilities.
There are lots of ways things could shake out, without requiring either a nuclear exchange or an end to great power competition. The War of the Spanish Succession ended without the Habsburgs, Bourbons, Hohenzollerns, or Stuart (soon to be Hanoverians) being toppled. And yet it was still a great power/crisis war conflict.
Quote:Trump wants to clamp down on free trade and globalization. How would YOU do that? Maybe a clever strategy would be to buddy up with Russia, who do not export goods than compete with US manufacturers, and become cold with China in the hope that you can get them to do something that sufficiently provocative to justify a trade war in response. Such a war would crater our economy in the short term. If we can blame it on China and point out that a recession (even a serious one) is preferable to a nuclear war, maybe Trump's base won't abandon him.
And the Defense Production Act and other accouterments of a formal declaration of war would give a Trump Administration broad powers to commandeer and restructure the industrial base, and a way to press a Republican Congress to massively increase spending. I mean, barring a nuclear exchange, both powers could hypothetically come off of it better off, regardless of who "won".
Again, not recommending it as a course of action, just trying to fully explore all the possibilities.