Again, to minimize the chances of their ideological enemies from gaining potential refuge, and maximize the survival of their own side's potential survivors.
And spite.
And spite.
True, the book did - the Russians wanted to kill of a whole lot of Chinese, the Chinese wanted to get rid of the Russians but leave their machinery intact, and as for the Albanians... well, I'm not quite sure why they started it all in the first place, to be honest.
But, at risk of injecting a note of rationality into the discussion (always risky where nukes are concerned!), it's hard to see what would be gained by the 'Samson' option. If a state is going to lose a nuclear war anyway, how does it benefit them to wipe out everyone else?
True, the book did - the Russians wanted to kill of a whole lot of Chinese, the Chinese wanted to get rid of the Russians but leave their machinery intact, and as for the Albanians... well, I'm not quite sure why they started it all in the first place, to be honest.
Most of the time? That doesn't mean they act based on full, unbiased information, though.Since when has a leader thought rationally?