3 ms·

If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it. As of right now America's capabiliti

If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it. As of right now America's capabilities in every domain are vastly superior and I hope it remains so. Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that. I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose. If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong". There is no alternative to an arms race. Russia and China won't simply become beautiful peace loving countries overnight if America slacks off. If anything assures nuclear war it's America being weak. Plus you're assuming some perfect rationality where Russia (or some other country) couldn't possibly just launch an attack for a stupid reason. It's always a possibility. You want to try to win in that situation too. Under MAD you're just hoping it won't happen.

vkou 6y ago
> If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it. Of course you do! You don't believe that MAD works! But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first? > Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that. Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size. What evidence, besides your belief do you have, for the United States not losing more than three quarters of its civilian population, if attacked by six thousand nuclear weapons? > I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose. No, everybody would lose. The reason they haven't done anything is because it is not an inflection point. Localized missile defenses that will stop a small fraction of a small fraction of potential attacks are not an inflection point that breaks MAD. They are something to complain about, not something to go to war over. But just because cutting off 5% of your air supply doesn't result in serious problems for you, cutting it off again, and again, and again, and again will eventually reach a critical inflection point. > If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong". Just because the reds said it, doesn't mean they were wrong.
- auganov 6y ago
  > But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first? I'm just telling you I find the question irrelevant. If you're threatened with total destruction and think you can win of course you should attack. > Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size. There are many more variables involved than just the size of the arsenal. The notion that everybody will just fire all their nukes at once is unrealistic. Silos can be attacked, comms can be disrupted, things can malfunction, there are a TON of things at play. Just looking at the nuclear stockpile makes no sense. In every military domain US has superior capabilities. No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US. And after you're done firing nukes traditional military still matters.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > I'm just telling you I find the question irrelevant. If you're threatened with total destruction and think you can win of course you should attack. Great. Now, put yourself in Ivan's shoes. NATO has encircled you, militarily and economically. Your military is second-rate, at best. But you do have six thousand nuclear weapons, which mean that nobody is stupid enough to mess with you. ... And then Uncle Sam starts building anti-nuclear defenses on your borders, with the long-term aim of eliminating the sole means of defense that you have. If you're Ivan, to use your own words - of course you should attack! And what's the overall result? A missile defense system that is intended to save American lives actually ends up ending them, because its existence causes a nuclear war. It completely fails at its stated purpose! > No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US. Outperform is completely meaningless in this context. Outperform means the difference between 68% of your population being killed in a thirty minutes, compared to 82% of the enemy's (With two thirds of the remainder dying over the next week). That's not winning. That's not outperforming on any metric that matters. Once you're done firing nukes, you're country's traditional military doesn't matter because you no longer have a country. What you have is a humanitarian crisis, multiple orders of magnitude worse then whatever stupid geo-political spat your foreign ministries were arguing over.

vkou 6y ago

> If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it. Of course you do! You don't believe that MAD works! But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first? > Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that. Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size. What evidence, besides your belief do you have, for the United States not losing more than three quarters of its civilian population, if attacked by six thousand nuclear weapons? > I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose. No, everybody would lose. The reason they haven't done anything is because it is not an inflection point. Localized missile defenses that will stop a small fraction of a small fraction of potential attacks are not an inflection point that breaks MAD. They are something to complain about, not something to go to war over. But just because cutting off 5% of your air supply doesn't result in serious problems for you, cutting it off again, and again, and again, and again will eventually reach a critical inflection point. > If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong". Just because the reds said it, doesn't mean they were wrong.

auganov 6y ago
> But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first? I'm just telling you I find the question irrelevant. If you're threatened with total destruction and think you can win of course you should attack. > Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size. There are many more variables involved than just the size of the arsenal. The notion that everybody will just fire all their nukes at once is unrealistic. Silos can be attacked, comms can be disrupted, things can malfunction, there are a TON of things at play. Just looking at the nuclear stockpile makes no sense. In every military domain US has superior capabilities. No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US. And after you're done firing nukes traditional military still matters.
- vkou 6y ago
  > I'm just telling you I find the question irrelevant. If you're threatened with total destruction and think you can win of course you should attack. Great. Now, put yourself in Ivan's shoes. NATO has encircled you, militarily and economically. Your military is second-rate, at best. But you do have six thousand nuclear weapons, which mean that nobody is stupid enough to mess with you. ... And then Uncle Sam starts building anti-nuclear defenses on your borders, with the long-term aim of eliminating the sole means of defense that you have. If you're Ivan, to use your own words - of course you should attack! And what's the overall result? A missile defense system that is intended to save American lives actually ends up ending them, because its existence causes a nuclear war. It completely fails at its stated purpose! > No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US. Outperform is completely meaningless in this context. Outperform means the difference between 68% of your population being killed in a thirty minutes, compared to 82% of the enemy's (With two thirds of the remainder dying over the next week). That's not winning. That's not outperforming on any metric that matters. Once you're done firing nukes, you're country's traditional military doesn't matter because you no longer have a country. What you have is a humanitarian crisis, multiple orders of magnitude worse then whatever stupid geo-political spat your foreign ministries were arguing over.