4 ms·

This is crazy talk. > The US will enjoy the maximum military gap about 20 years from now and this will provide a huge incentive to perform a decapitation strik

This is crazy talk. > The US will enjoy the maximum military gap about 20 years from now and this will provide a huge incentive to perform a decapitation strike. Would this be palatable to the US population? Only if it can be demonstrated that the collateral damage would be insignificant. Is that possible? What do you need to do? A decapitation strike couldn't be debated. It would have to be done. The US population would only accept it--and only in part, as some segments would never accept it--as a fait accompli if there were zero US casualties, few foreign civilian casualties, no/minimal residual health risks, and limited reputational damage to the US. I highly doubt any, let alone all, could be accomplished with a nearly sufficient degree of confidence, even with groundbreaking missile defense systems. The risks of miscalculation are staggering, and the immorality of attempting or even seriously considering (as a policymaker) such a "decapitation strike" in the current or foreseeable future global context is indisputable.

credit_guy 7y ago
> This is crazy talk. Quite succinct and accurate. I have to admit, reading my own words, I do sound like a crank. So, let me give a more nuanced view. I think the probability of an all-out nuclear exchange is still quite reduced, but if the capability gap between Russia and the US extends considerably, this probability will increase from the current infinitesimal level to a non-negligible one. Other events that were once considered unthinkable (DJT, Brexit) have come to pass, so never say never. With that said, how can we get to such an extreme event as a nuclear exchange? I think that whenever there is a military crisis in the world (Iran threatening to resume uranium enrichment ?) the POTUS asks his advisors for options. The spectrum of options ranges from PR spin machine, to diplomatic pressure, to military operations. All options will have listed their pros and cons, their best, base and worst outcomes. They will be judged in isolation and weighed against each other. After this careful comparative cost-benefit analysis, the POTUS makes the decision. Now all things being equal, if the military gap between the US and the opponent is larger, the armed response options will comparatively have a better cost-benefit ratio. The more impenetrable the ABM defense becomes, the more the military option will look like the better deal. Now the vicious cycle is that, as the military option is chosen more often (how long did it take DJT to send an aircraft carrier towards Iran?), the more tensions will appear, and the more crisis situations will emerge. Some of them will be de-escalated, but some will escalate to various levels. Sometimes cool heads will prevail, but sometimes the grown-ups will have left the room already. One day Russia might do something that would trigger Nato's article 5 [1], and the US will have to respond. You could say that we've been in many situations like that in the 60's, 70's and 80's, but the military gap between the US and the Soviet Union was never close to what it's now, and what will become in the coming decades. Ok, ok, but nuclear, you say? Well, the US has dropped about 100 bombs in Nevada, just 60 miles from Las Vegas, and it was no big deal. A few (hundred) small-ish nukes going boom in the middle of Siberia will result in some condemnations from some pacifist organizations, but as long as there is some reasonable casus belli and minimal civilian collateral damage, people will move on quite soon. [1] https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-nato-articles-4-and-5/24626653.html https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-nato-articles-4-and-5/2462...

credit_guy 7y ago

> This is crazy talk. Quite succinct and accurate. I have to admit, reading my own words, I do sound like a crank. So, let me give a more nuanced view. I think the probability of an all-out nuclear exchange is still quite reduced, but if the capability gap between Russia and the US extends considerably, this probability will increase from the current infinitesimal level to a non-negligible one. Other events that were once considered unthinkable (DJT, Brexit) have come to pass, so never say never. With that said, how can we get to such an extreme event as a nuclear exchange? I think that whenever there is a military crisis in the world (Iran threatening to resume uranium enrichment ?) the POTUS asks his advisors for options. The spectrum of options ranges from PR spin machine, to diplomatic pressure, to military operations. All options will have listed their pros and cons, their best, base and worst outcomes. They will be judged in isolation and weighed against each other. After this careful comparative cost-benefit analysis, the POTUS makes the decision. Now all things being equal, if the military gap between the US and the opponent is larger, the armed response options will comparatively have a better cost-benefit ratio. The more impenetrable the ABM defense becomes, the more the military option will look like the better deal. Now the vicious cycle is that, as the military option is chosen more often (how long did it take DJT to send an aircraft carrier towards Iran?), the more tensions will appear, and the more crisis situations will emerge. Some of them will be de-escalated, but some will escalate to various levels. Sometimes cool heads will prevail, but sometimes the grown-ups will have left the room already. One day Russia might do something that would trigger Nato's article 5 [1], and the US will have to respond. You could say that we've been in many situations like that in the 60's, 70's and 80's, but the military gap between the US and the Soviet Union was never close to what it's now, and what will become in the coming decades. Ok, ok, but nuclear, you say? Well, the US has dropped about 100 bombs in Nevada, just 60 miles from Las Vegas, and it was no big deal. A few (hundred) small-ish nukes going boom in the middle of Siberia will result in some condemnations from some pacifist organizations, but as long as there is some reasonable casus belli and minimal civilian collateral damage, people will move on quite soon. [1] https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-nato-articles-4-and-5/24626653.html https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-nato-articles-4-and-5/2462...