A nuclear war wouldn’t eliminate all governments involved, so in some sense they are “winnable.” The best way to frame MAD is not that all nations involved are destroyed, but rather that a Malthusian trap is simultaneously triggered for all nations. Nuclear war destroys the global economy, without which we all no longer can specialize but must become generalist subsistence farmers. In this scenario many people die in a few weeks and most people die in a few years, but still some billions eke out a meager existence based on their geographical location and the difficulty of transitioning to a subsistence economy.<p>It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today.<p>It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media.<p>In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918/html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...</a>