4 ms·

No. That logic only holds if one or more of the parties are willing to escalate a conventional conflict to a nuclear one. Russia for example, would be willing t

No. That logic only holds if one or more of the parties are willing to escalate a conventional conflict to a nuclear one. Russia for example, would be willing to escalate a conventional war to a nuclear one in the event of an imminent ground invasion of Moscow. But the most likely wars are not ones of nuclear powers marching onto another's capital, but instead wars over bordering countries. Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. Both of these hypothetical wars are potential conflicts because a victory for Russia and China in those conflicts would be extremely advantageous and desirable to the point that even a very low risk of nuclear esculation would be worth it to them.

fuoqi 6y ago
>Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. I highly doubt it. Baltic states are part of NATO, assuming Russia blitzkriegs them (it's a really HUGE assumption since they have relatively little geopolitical or economical value for Russia, the Suwalki corridor would be nice to have, but not considering the associated risks), leaving occupation unanswered will mean that US leadership position in the world (together with NATO) will be effectively dead. So further escalation will be practically imminent. I think China's invasion of Taiwan will not be left unanswered as well, in addition to the huge reputation hit similar to the scenario with Baltic states, Taiwan has a big geopolitical (cornerstone of the first island chain) and economical value (not only TSMC) for the US. Further escalation is highly probable as well. A contained clash could've happened in the South China sea, but since China got entrenched there, the US Navy got quite careful to not overstep itself in this region. And this balance will continue to tilt only further to China's favor. A limited conflict could in theory happen with a limited invasion of Russia, since its current nuclear doctrine is quite defensive (esp. compared to the US'), but the "threatens the existence of the state" condition is a bit vague, so assuming that Russia will use all its available military to defend itself, it will either drive invading forces out using conventional means (which would include counter-attacks on "decision centers"), or in the end will use nuclear weapons.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  A second Trump term would have seen the US leaving NATO. This would leave the EU relatively defenceless because only France has a truly independent nuclear deterrent - the UK's deterrent is effectively part of the US arsenal - and the EU has very few conventional forces of its own. But Putin's plan appears to be to destabilise the EU from within by promoting extremist far-right governments with more or less obvious Russian influence and anti-EU sentiments. See also Brexit, Poland, Hungary, and the Ukraine, and the - so far - less effective far right movements being promoted in France, Italy, Portugal, and so on. This is much cheaper and more effective than sending in the tanks. You can promote regime change with a few social media troll factories and by buying or otherwise persuading local politicians. It's not a coincidence that the threat of a hypothetical EU army was one of the main pro-Brexit talking points sold to British racists, or that significant funding for Brexit came from Russia. As for goals - for Russia it's partly about revenge, and partly about the destruction of Western liberal values. Putin has said as much in public on a number of occasions.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    My opinion is that the main driver behind the rise of far-right movement is the refugee crisis, caused by the US-led destructive interventions to Syria and Libya, which got amplified by questionable refugee policy, effectively promoting human-trafficking business. The almighty Russian meddling can only tip public opinion a bit in the desired direction, but can not create it from nothing. To not repeat myself, I will simply link my old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23743786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23743786
    - dx87 6y ago
      The "US-led destructive interventions" were requested by European countries who've been meddling with Syria and the surrounding countries since WW2. Stop trying to blame European issues on the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...
- 6y ago

fuoqi 6y ago

>Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. I highly doubt it. Baltic states are part of NATO, assuming Russia blitzkriegs them (it's a really HUGE assumption since they have relatively little geopolitical or economical value for Russia, the Suwalki corridor would be nice to have, but not considering the associated risks), leaving occupation unanswered will mean that US leadership position in the world (together with NATO) will be effectively dead. So further escalation will be practically imminent. I think China's invasion of Taiwan will not be left unanswered as well, in addition to the huge reputation hit similar to the scenario with Baltic states, Taiwan has a big geopolitical (cornerstone of the first island chain) and economical value (not only TSMC) for the US. Further escalation is highly probable as well. A contained clash could've happened in the South China sea, but since China got entrenched there, the US Navy got quite careful to not overstep itself in this region. And this balance will continue to tilt only further to China's favor. A limited conflict could in theory happen with a limited invasion of Russia, since its current nuclear doctrine is quite defensive (esp. compared to the US'), but the "threatens the existence of the state" condition is a bit vague, so assuming that Russia will use all its available military to defend itself, it will either drive invading forces out using conventional means (which would include counter-attacks on "decision centers"), or in the end will use nuclear weapons.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
A second Trump term would have seen the US leaving NATO. This would leave the EU relatively defenceless because only France has a truly independent nuclear deterrent - the UK's deterrent is effectively part of the US arsenal - and the EU has very few conventional forces of its own. But Putin's plan appears to be to destabilise the EU from within by promoting extremist far-right governments with more or less obvious Russian influence and anti-EU sentiments. See also Brexit, Poland, Hungary, and the Ukraine, and the - so far - less effective far right movements being promoted in France, Italy, Portugal, and so on. This is much cheaper and more effective than sending in the tanks. You can promote regime change with a few social media troll factories and by buying or otherwise persuading local politicians. It's not a coincidence that the threat of a hypothetical EU army was one of the main pro-Brexit talking points sold to British racists, or that significant funding for Brexit came from Russia. As for goals - for Russia it's partly about revenge, and partly about the destruction of Western liberal values. Putin has said as much in public on a number of occasions.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  My opinion is that the main driver behind the rise of far-right movement is the refugee crisis, caused by the US-led destructive interventions to Syria and Libya, which got amplified by questionable refugee policy, effectively promoting human-trafficking business. The almighty Russian meddling can only tip public opinion a bit in the desired direction, but can not create it from nothing. To not repeat myself, I will simply link my old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23743786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23743786
  - dx87 6y ago
    The "US-led destructive interventions" were requested by European countries who've been meddling with Syria and the surrounding countries since WW2. Stop trying to blame European issues on the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...
6y ago