>>64510039
>You don't know if you can or not, so you have to assume that you can't
This has no logical basis. There is no logical argument that holds water that can support this claim once seriously considered.
>Surprise doesn't matter due to something I already mentioned that you were apparently too stupid to understand which is called SECOND STRIKE capability, it means that if an enemy wipes your civilization out, you still have enough remote/concealed weapon platforms to wipe theirs out in retaliation.
Having a second strike capability does not necessitate a second strike capability in all theoretical situations. Not unless you want to simply do a
>nu-uh, we get to second strike you cuz I say so!
argument, at which point we might as well just stop this. Just because we can nuke another country after suffering an initial nuclear strike doesn't mean we can react to having a meteorite slammed into our planet.

Why are you dragging interspecies dynamics onto Earth nuclear warfare anyway?

>So are any countries around today yet oddly enough international diplomacy doesn't involve committing genocide against everyone you can get your hands on.
Because we aren't capable of it. Many would if they could.

>No, having your homeworld destroyed is not worth starting a war for no reason beyond belligerent retardation.
You have no assurance that your homeworld will not be destroyed regardless, which is the key issue at hand.
You have no way of ensuring that an alien species will consider such a notion and choose not to destroy you as a threat.
Hell, you can't even assure that they're a species to begin with. They might as well be some rogue AI, who just wipe out any organics they run into. You don't know, which is the entire problem.

>No, I'm assuming they're smart enough to understand game theory and the reason for that is if they make it to space, they're not retards like you who don't understand game theory and are incapable of abstract thought.
Dark Forest theory, read it