I don't understand this analogy. You're using a WW I analogy toNavigator wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:56 pm> I don't disagree that nukes will eventually be used against
> cities. I just disagree with you on the timing.
> I don't see the upcoming war with China as an "end to civilization
> war". Which is what it would be if there were thermonuclear
> exchange vs metro areas.
> My opinion (and I respect that it is not yours) is that WW3 will
> be similar to WW1 in that it will end the "established order of
> things".
> I then believe there will be a brief period of relative
> peace. This would then be followed by the rise of dictator(s)
> along the lines of Hitler/Stalin/Mao. This person (or persons),
> the anti-Christ(s) if you will, will have no qualms about using
> thermonuclear weapons.
> The book I wrote is about how to get through the WW3 and postwar
> period.
> I have no issues with people getting geiger counters and iodine
> pills. Maybe they will help you. My personal belief is that in
> the event of a serious thermonuclear exchange, you would need aid
> of a biblical nature in order to survive.
conclude that China will hold back from using its principal weapon
(nuclear weapon). But what would be the analogous principal weapon
that was held back during WW I?