The argument for a longer conventional war rests on the threat of reciprocal destruction. Britain's and Germany's failure to use chemical or biological weapons against each other is offered as an analogy for the restraint that expected retaliation could impose. Japan's inability to answer the atomic attacks provides the contrasting case. Published Soviet threats of mass nuclear strikes could still unsettle Western audiences and encourage planning for a short war. In this interpretation, an immediate nuclear exchange became less certain after the late 1950s, leaving a greater need to consider wars lasting months or years.
Notable Point · 3:37:09-3:39:56
Mutual retaliation could leave room for a longer conventional war
Expected retaliation underpins an interpretation in which Cold War fighting might remain conventional long enough for distant naval operations and supply endurance to matter.