The Chinese are doing some very advanced philosophizing on the subject of Unrestricted Warfare[1]. It's a remarkably comprehensive view of national conflict, that reminds me of Clausewitz's famous maxim that "war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means".

It's an interesting thought experiment to ponder what exactly a nation-state's political objectives would have to be that a nuclear war would be the best way to accomplish them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

> why bother with sending nukes on other countries when you can threaten them with "bombarding you with migrants"

Which country is using "bombarding with migrants" as a deliberate tactic to undermine a rival country?

In contrast, I do agree with you that freezing assets is a real way to retaliate, and we've witnessed it in action. It has happened, and the relevant states have explained how and why it was a deliberate action.

I like this new word thaught, I shall start using it in my belligerences.

This seems reasonable and we even have phrases for it. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and now Pax Americana.

Yeah that resonates with me. There’s rarely peace, just quiet, created forcibly by a dominant actor.

Just as people countries get tired being "dominated" too. And the "dominator" rots if it does not have healthy competition