5 ms·

https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-consultations-under-article-4-nato-treaty https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con.

https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-consultations-under-article-4-nato-treaty https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con... People are minimizing this, based on the word "consultation". Don't be fooled, this is grave news, even though it is not Article 5. Article 5 invocation under these circumstances have substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Ukraine is not in the Nato, so I don't think Nato would consider launching nukes to defend it.
garbagecoder 5y ago
You’ve read too many Tom Clancy novels or something. People can declare whatever they want but unless there really is an attack on NATO, no one is talking about Article 5 and in such a circumstance it would be the attack itself and not the citation to a treaty that would be the issue. Also, a “full scale thermonuclear exchange” isn’t what it used to be. Stockpiles are orders of magnitude smaller than in the past, and many aren’t “thermonuclear” at all, just fission bombs with higher yield and better targeting.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  Reading any Tom Clancy novels is too many, so guilty as charged. I can't unread them. Since this is a hot war waged by Russia that is neighboring 4 NATO members, it seems as though you are a bit more a casual than would be appropriate. Your comments about nuclear war are not comforting.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- salawat 5y ago
  You...realize that all "thermonuclear" is is doping your bomb with tritium/a light fusion stage to generate more neutrons, for more complete fission of the fissile primary, right? All nuclear weapons are fission. Only newer ones are fusion boosted fission devices. I assure you, there is more than enough nuclear ordinance laying around to ensure WWIV is fought with sticks and stones. You do not want.
  - irrational 5y ago
    I’m fairly certain that some people truly do want to see the world burn.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Hard to do with cooked retinas, acute radiation poisoning, and the prospects of living beyond 20 cancer free are minimal. Also, the world's a big place, even though the internet has made it seem small. Yes, I understand it'd be nice to watch a good fee choice chunks burn... But I really don't think anyone is prepared for the hell on Earth of a full strategic nuclear exchange.
      - andbberger 5y ago
        cooked retinas... try melted eyeballs... happened at hiroshima. nuclear weapons are truly barbaric
- machiaweliczny 5y ago
  There exists bombs with > 4000x power of those dropped on Hiroshima. Also Russia modernised their intercontinental missiles and now they are able to carry multiple warheads that split before impact.
fredophile 5y ago
Ukraine isn't part of NATO so article 5 doesn't apply here.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  That is why I said, "even though it is not Article 5"
  - fredophile 5y ago
    Your next sentence started with, "Article 5 invocation under these circumstances" which gave me the impression you meant that article 5 could somehow be invoked here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
ckastner 5y ago
> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis. A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1] To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  Yes, in the presence of rational actors this would be avoided, but here we are anyway. A single nuclear strike would be met with retaliation and it would escalate to mutually assured destruction like clockwork. A lot of optimists thought Putin would not invade Ukraine because of the risk and that he was posturing. It would be similarly optimistic to presume rational actor decision processes. That may be a strategy he is employing, but we will never know until the brink. We are on the knife's edge of disaster here.
  - bremac 5y ago
    If Putin presses on toward Poland or threatens the Baltics, then we will be on a knife's edge. However, for now, Russia has only invaded Ukraine. It's a humanitarian disaster, but so far on the world stage it shows no sign it will escalate beyond new sanctions, export controls, and perhaps additional military support for NATO members in Eastern Europe.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ckastner 5y ago
    > We are on the knife's edge of disaster here. Not even remotely true. Demonstrably. The worst thing on the table right now are economic sanctions. Putin knew these were going to happen, and evidently thought the trouble was worth it. In fact, over the past few weeks, the major powers have confirmed over and over and over again that there would be no military response at all.
awb 5y ago
> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. To what end? If Russia wants more territory they presumably care about the future. Why conquer all this territory just to blow up the world? Sounds like a waste of time. The scariest situation is one nuke. How do you respond? One nuke back or two? Then things escalate quickly. But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.
- camhart 5y ago
  > But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is. "I won" regardless of having someone to brag to, is still a motivating force I fear.
vmception 5y ago
Article 4 was done in 2014 too and it was hardly news while again in reaction to Ukraine which was experiencing its own civil war against a pro-Russian puppet leader that resulted in regime change aannnnnnd.... nothing else. The military operation by Russia is alarming. The Article 4 invocation is not.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

Ukraine is not in the Nato, so I don't think Nato would consider launching nukes to defend it.

garbagecoder 5y ago

You’ve read too many Tom Clancy novels or something. People can declare whatever they want but unless there really is an attack on NATO, no one is talking about Article 5 and in such a circumstance it would be the attack itself and not the citation to a treaty that would be the issue. Also, a “full scale thermonuclear exchange” isn’t what it used to be. Stockpiles are orders of magnitude smaller than in the past, and many aren’t “thermonuclear” at all, just fission bombs with higher yield and better targeting.

throwaway5752 5y ago
Reading any Tom Clancy novels is too many, so guilty as charged. I can't unread them. Since this is a hot war waged by Russia that is neighboring 4 NATO members, it seems as though you are a bit more a casual than would be appropriate. Your comments about nuclear war are not comforting.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
salawat 5y ago
You...realize that all "thermonuclear" is is doping your bomb with tritium/a light fusion stage to generate more neutrons, for more complete fission of the fissile primary, right? All nuclear weapons are fission. Only newer ones are fusion boosted fission devices. I assure you, there is more than enough nuclear ordinance laying around to ensure WWIV is fought with sticks and stones. You do not want.
- irrational 5y ago
  I’m fairly certain that some people truly do want to see the world burn.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Hard to do with cooked retinas, acute radiation poisoning, and the prospects of living beyond 20 cancer free are minimal. Also, the world's a big place, even though the internet has made it seem small. Yes, I understand it'd be nice to watch a good fee choice chunks burn... But I really don't think anyone is prepared for the hell on Earth of a full strategic nuclear exchange.
    - andbberger 5y ago
      cooked retinas... try melted eyeballs... happened at hiroshima. nuclear weapons are truly barbaric
machiaweliczny 5y ago
There exists bombs with > 4000x power of those dropped on Hiroshima. Also Russia modernised their intercontinental missiles and now they are able to carry multiple warheads that split before impact.

fredophile 5y ago

Ukraine isn't part of NATO so article 5 doesn't apply here.

throwaway5752 5y ago
That is why I said, "even though it is not Article 5"
- fredophile 5y ago
  Your next sentence started with, "Article 5 invocation under these circumstances" which gave me the impression you meant that article 5 could somehow be invoked here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

ckastner 5y ago

> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis. A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1] To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

throwaway5752 5y ago
Yes, in the presence of rational actors this would be avoided, but here we are anyway. A single nuclear strike would be met with retaliation and it would escalate to mutually assured destruction like clockwork. A lot of optimists thought Putin would not invade Ukraine because of the risk and that he was posturing. It would be similarly optimistic to presume rational actor decision processes. That may be a strategy he is employing, but we will never know until the brink. We are on the knife's edge of disaster here.
- bremac 5y ago
  If Putin presses on toward Poland or threatens the Baltics, then we will be on a knife's edge. However, for now, Russia has only invaded Ukraine. It's a humanitarian disaster, but so far on the world stage it shows no sign it will escalate beyond new sanctions, export controls, and perhaps additional military support for NATO members in Eastern Europe.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ckastner 5y ago
  > We are on the knife's edge of disaster here. Not even remotely true. Demonstrably. The worst thing on the table right now are economic sanctions. Putin knew these were going to happen, and evidently thought the trouble was worth it. In fact, over the past few weeks, the major powers have confirmed over and over and over again that there would be no military response at all.

awb 5y ago

> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. To what end? If Russia wants more territory they presumably care about the future. Why conquer all this territory just to blow up the world? Sounds like a waste of time. The scariest situation is one nuke. How do you respond? One nuke back or two? Then things escalate quickly. But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.

camhart 5y ago
> But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is. "I won" regardless of having someone to brag to, is still a motivating force I fear.

vmception 5y ago

Article 4 was done in 2014 too and it was hardly news while again in reaction to Ukraine which was experiencing its own civil war against a pro-Russian puppet leader that resulted in regime change aannnnnnd.... nothing else. The military operation by Russia is alarming. The Article 4 invocation is not.