Mutual Assured Destruction Debate Continued

If the players were really sane, mutual assured destruction would not be considered a reasonable option. It's not even war. It's a "crime against humanity" many orders of ridiculous magnitude worse than all previous cases combined. You cannot assume all players to be sane in this world, because as even economists realized, people are not sane, nor are groups of people. The point of "mutual assured destruction" is not actually to win a war. It is to murder as many human beings as possible, while safe in a deep silo somewhere. Nuclear submarines don't do all that much except for launching more nuclear weapons. The side that destroys more capabilities wins, and it's not going to be equal at all. So everyone is destroyed, but some are more destroyed than others and that's important.