The United States and Russia have been in a nuclear deadlock since both sides got their hands on ICBMs.

Neither adhere to a no-first-use doctrine. That means that they reserve the right to scorch the world with nuclear fire, in response to an attack by conventional weapons.

It's hard to pin down exactly how disproportionate this level of hubris is.

Maybe it's the decades of arms reductions, the diplomatic relations, and the lack of a highly disputed border area which periodically erupts into violence?

But no... it must just be a double standard... if you squint hard enough.

As opposed to decades of proxy wars, sponsoring terrorism, election-dependent schizophrenia on the part of the Department of State, and much larger weapon arsenals?

The decades of arms reductions still put the arsenals of either the US, or Russia at ~10 times that of India and Pakistan combined.

At least India has a no-first-use policy. I'm not saying things are better in that conflict, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

That's a whole lot of red herrings there, which have nothing to do with nuclear policy or not wanting to empower one side of an ongoing nuclear standoff with superior tech.

It does at least tell anyone with a scrap of skepticism though, where you're coming from. Equivocation is at the heart of apologism.

All of these things are incredibly relevant. Over the years, US-Russian relations have fluctuated between begrudging tolerance, open contempt, proxy wars, and even nuclear brinksmanship.

While the odds of nuclear conflict between them may be lower then the odds of one between India and Pakistan (And this is an arguable point), it will be incredibly more devastating.

As such, it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that New Delhi has it's thumb on the doomsday button, but that Moscow or Washington don't.

Except that you reversed the order of that list, which is in fact just the deescalation away from nuclear brinksmanship.

As for devastation, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010...

> nuclear deadlock with their fingers on the "button"

So much sensationalism in this comment! It's like watching a sensationalist news channel. Anyone who follows India-Pakistan politics know that nuclear war is unlikely. Neither of them can afford another war.

The "realistic" situation is that unless nuclear weapons end up in the hands of terrorists in Pakistan, there is no real nuclear threat.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but that sounds like PR to me.