4 ms·

There were knuckleheads on both sides who thought they could get away with a first strike. During the Russian-Georgian war, the Bush administration actually toy

by finid 10y ago

There were knuckleheads on both sides who thought they could get away with a first strike. During the Russian-Georgian war, the Bush administration actually toyed with the idea of striking Russia. Bush was given the option, but he declined. Edit: The option was not nuclear, though.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I can't imagine a US strike on Russia that would not become nuclear very quickly. If nothing else, the Russians can't assume that the US strike is not nuclear, so the Russian response would be. And the US can't assume that the Russian response is not nuclear, so the next US strike would be. And there we go...
- pravula 10y ago
  Not really. As a counter point, see India/Pakistan Kargil war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War). Both were nuclear armed and still kept it conventional.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    India and Pakistan share a border, though. For the US to strike Russia is either a missile or a plane. That missile or plane carries a nuclear threat that a bullet or a mortar shell doesn't. "Is that missile that's going to hit in 10 minutes carrying a nuclear warhead?" is a different category of question than "Is this shooting war on the line of control going to cause the other side to use the nuclear weapons that they have, but which are not anywhere near where the fighting is, and are clearly not yet being fired at us?"
  - sgt101 10y ago
    Not really. You are making a false comparison. The differences are : - USA has an asymmetric conventional dominance that would prevent a non nuclear outcome that could provide a strategically acceptable outcome for Russia. - The USA's continental territory is 1000's of km from Russia; a Russian retaliation would not be short range strikes but intercontinental - this would look pretty much like a nuclear escalation even if it wasn't - The outcome of a conventional strike by Russia on the continental territory of the USA - for example one conventional cruise missile striking Portsmouth Navel Base in Maine - would be politically catastrophic for the sitting president. I cannot imagine the likely outcomes for said president or their likely next move, and I invite you to contemplate the possibility that neither you or the Russians are able to do that either. A conventional confrontation between Russia and the USA could remain rational so long as neither national territory is involved. If either national territory is involved the retaliation would lead to an irrational situation immediately - after that all bets are off. Even a clear accident would be extremely likely to trigger a nuclear war.
mikeash 10y ago
In the early 1960s, the US could get away with a first strike. The inevitable Soviet retaliation would hurt, but it wouldn't wreck the country. The disparity between American nuclear forces able to strike the USSR and Soviet nuclear forces able to strike the US was completely ridiculous. MAD didn't really become a thing until the late 60s or early 70s. Europe would have been utterly devastated, but the US would have come out of it mostly intact. There was a fairly lengthy period (a decade or so) where the USSR was threatened with complete annihilation and the only thing holding it back was the fear of losing European allies, and the general unwillingness of American leadership to kill tens or hundreds of millions of civilians. And we wonder why they were so paranoid about us....
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Exactly. A good read is the book "Two Minutes To Midnight" about the Cuban missile crisis...it discusses the disparity between the capabilities Khrushchev claimed and what US intelligence knew to be true.
  - finid 10y ago
    You have to take "what US intelligence knew to be true" with a grain of salt. Just recently, Obama dismissed Russia as a 3rd-rate military power. You have to believe that was based on intelligence briefings. That tune changed quickly when Russia started flexing muscle in Syria.
    - mercutio2 10y ago
      Is there something about Russia's muscle flexing in Syria that doesn't indicate its conventional forces are third rate? If so, I haven't heard of it. The Syrian war is a minor skirmish. If significant strategic interests were actually at risk, the great powers would just invade and ignore the resulting loss of life. Instead, we standby and generally still ignore the loss of life.
      - finid 10y ago

by finid 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I can't imagine a US strike on Russia that would not become nuclear very quickly. If nothing else, the Russians can't assume that the US strike is not nuclear, so the Russian response would be. And the US can't assume that the Russian response is not nuclear, so the next US strike would be. And there we go...

pravula 10y ago
Not really. As a counter point, see India/Pakistan Kargil war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War). Both were nuclear armed and still kept it conventional.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  India and Pakistan share a border, though. For the US to strike Russia is either a missile or a plane. That missile or plane carries a nuclear threat that a bullet or a mortar shell doesn't. "Is that missile that's going to hit in 10 minutes carrying a nuclear warhead?" is a different category of question than "Is this shooting war on the line of control going to cause the other side to use the nuclear weapons that they have, but which are not anywhere near where the fighting is, and are clearly not yet being fired at us?"
- sgt101 10y ago
  Not really. You are making a false comparison. The differences are : - USA has an asymmetric conventional dominance that would prevent a non nuclear outcome that could provide a strategically acceptable outcome for Russia. - The USA's continental territory is 1000's of km from Russia; a Russian retaliation would not be short range strikes but intercontinental - this would look pretty much like a nuclear escalation even if it wasn't - The outcome of a conventional strike by Russia on the continental territory of the USA - for example one conventional cruise missile striking Portsmouth Navel Base in Maine - would be politically catastrophic for the sitting president. I cannot imagine the likely outcomes for said president or their likely next move, and I invite you to contemplate the possibility that neither you or the Russians are able to do that either. A conventional confrontation between Russia and the USA could remain rational so long as neither national territory is involved. If either national territory is involved the retaliation would lead to an irrational situation immediately - after that all bets are off. Even a clear accident would be extremely likely to trigger a nuclear war.

mikeash 10y ago

In the early 1960s, the US could get away with a first strike. The inevitable Soviet retaliation would hurt, but it wouldn't wreck the country. The disparity between American nuclear forces able to strike the USSR and Soviet nuclear forces able to strike the US was completely ridiculous. MAD didn't really become a thing until the late 60s or early 70s. Europe would have been utterly devastated, but the US would have come out of it mostly intact. There was a fairly lengthy period (a decade or so) where the USSR was threatened with complete annihilation and the only thing holding it back was the fear of losing European allies, and the general unwillingness of American leadership to kill tens or hundreds of millions of civilians. And we wonder why they were so paranoid about us....

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Exactly. A good read is the book "Two Minutes To Midnight" about the Cuban missile crisis...it discusses the disparity between the capabilities Khrushchev claimed and what US intelligence knew to be true.
- finid 10y ago
  You have to take "what US intelligence knew to be true" with a grain of salt. Just recently, Obama dismissed Russia as a 3rd-rate military power. You have to believe that was based on intelligence briefings. That tune changed quickly when Russia started flexing muscle in Syria.
  - mercutio2 10y ago
    Is there something about Russia's muscle flexing in Syria that doesn't indicate its conventional forces are third rate? If so, I haven't heard of it. The Syrian war is a minor skirmish. If significant strategic interests were actually at risk, the great powers would just invade and ignore the resulting loss of life. Instead, we standby and generally still ignore the loss of life.
    - finid 10y ago