4 ms·

> 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 ann

> 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.
  - disiplus 5y ago
    and so did putin say he would not go into ukraine. not everybody says what they would do in advance.
polotics 5y ago
I fear that with missile defense and impending climate disruption models, the calculus of MAD may have been updated somewhat: no-one wants a starving population with a MAGA-level of understanding and education about their predicament roaming around the enclaves... If you thought California's and Australia's fires were what climate impacts will look like, think again: a limited nuclear exchange will probably have about the same disruptive impact as a bad climate year in 2035 +/- 10 years. Tidsfrist!
- ciphol 5y ago
  A bad climate year will kill a handful of people, like California and Australia's fires did. (Humanity is getting richer and more capable faster than the climate is getting warmer.) A limited nuclear exchange will likely kill millions of people.
  - polotics 5y ago
    A bad climate year in 2040 will kill millions of people. Mark my words. Climate disruption is only getting started we are on an exponential response function between average temp and effects with plenty of hysteresis to come ie. no way back, won't regrow, won't feed...
csomar 5y ago
This keeps getting repeated but both parties having nuclear weapons means a nuclear exchange is possible. You just need one crazy party.
- ckastner 5y ago
  It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable". Me being old enough to buy lottery tickets means that me winning the lottery three times in a row is possible. The probability of that is very low. There is nothing to suggest that the probability of a full-scale nuclear exchange is now higher than before. In fact, given that all major powers have already ruled out a military response, the probability might even be lower. > You just need one crazy party. No, you need an entire crazy command-and-control structure.
  - sgift 5y ago
    > It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable". Let's just say the topic of "probable" hasn't the best track record right now and still hope for the best.

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.
- disiplus 5y ago
  and so did putin say he would not go into ukraine. not everybody says what they would do in advance.

polotics 5y ago

I fear that with missile defense and impending climate disruption models, the calculus of MAD may have been updated somewhat: no-one wants a starving population with a MAGA-level of understanding and education about their predicament roaming around the enclaves... If you thought California's and Australia's fires were what climate impacts will look like, think again: a limited nuclear exchange will probably have about the same disruptive impact as a bad climate year in 2035 +/- 10 years. Tidsfrist!

ciphol 5y ago
A bad climate year will kill a handful of people, like California and Australia's fires did. (Humanity is getting richer and more capable faster than the climate is getting warmer.) A limited nuclear exchange will likely kill millions of people.
- polotics 5y ago
  A bad climate year in 2040 will kill millions of people. Mark my words. Climate disruption is only getting started we are on an exponential response function between average temp and effects with plenty of hysteresis to come ie. no way back, won't regrow, won't feed...

csomar 5y ago

This keeps getting repeated but both parties having nuclear weapons means a nuclear exchange is possible. You just need one crazy party.

ckastner 5y ago
It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable". Me being old enough to buy lottery tickets means that me winning the lottery three times in a row is possible. The probability of that is very low. There is nothing to suggest that the probability of a full-scale nuclear exchange is now higher than before. In fact, given that all major powers have already ruled out a military response, the probability might even be lower. > You just need one crazy party. No, you need an entire crazy command-and-control structure.
- sgift 5y ago
  > It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable". Let's just say the topic of "probable" hasn't the best track record right now and still hope for the best.