5 ms·

I had this mind as I wrote up my post but didn't mention it because I didn't consider the nuclear option as a serious option. Or maybe I'm just optimistic/delus

I had this mind as I wrote up my post but didn't mention it because I didn't consider the nuclear option as a serious option. Or maybe I'm just optimistic/delusional. But how would the nuclear option play out? Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion. So I fire some nukes. But then they fire nukes back at me. ???? Did I profit?

tomatotomato37 5y ago
If that Russian oligarch is deluded into believing MAD is now obsolete due to some top secret technology or military maneuver or whatever than all bets are off
- gaetgu 5y ago
  I doubt it. I really don't think he would choose a nuclear option, but rather an option in which his Russian troops fight NATO to the very end, something like Japan in the end of WWII. Except that this time, we can't use nukes.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  That's what has been causing more tension than the actual nukes for a while now - effective countermeasures, or ICBM countermeasures. If one party has an effective countermeasure against ICBMs, it takes away MAD and the one holding the countermeasure gets to claim military superiority. Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).
  - daedalus_f 5y ago
    I think fear of countermeasures unbalancing MAD is also what’s driving development of Russia’s non-ballistic missile based warhead delivery systems, like status-6 [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos...
leto_ii 5y ago
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are). As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.
- gls2ro 5y ago
  I dont understand how someone in the western world could read history and still believe that doing exactly what they did at the start of WW2 will bring a different result.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    I just don't think that Putin in 2022 is Hitler in 1939. Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      That might not necessarily be the case. Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry. Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it. They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.
      - ThalesX 5y ago
        The propaganda, both in the west and in the east have made this matter very hard to understand for the average citizen.
      - MockObject 5y ago
        Their economy is a little bit larger than the NY state economy.
lm28469 5y ago
If people were rational we wouldn't have had two world wars, Putin himself mentioned nuclear war a few times recently
rurp 5y ago
War is complicated, confusing, and messy. An all out conflict greatly increases the odds of a situation where Putin thinks a nuclear attack is imminent and decides to strike first. Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?
- cincoantes 5y ago
adamsmith143 5y ago
> But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion. I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation. Did I profit?
- rossmohax 5y ago
  Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.
  - kjkjadksj 5y ago
    There is no chance of survival. As soon as your missiles leave the earth or the sea, the enemy launches their entire salvo before your strike has time to hit its targets, and the world ends.
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    Yes, it's called MAD. I think it's been settled fact for decades that any country launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear armed country will be in turn annihilated. There is no survival.
notyourday 5y ago
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion. This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.
hnfong 5y ago
> The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved. All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too. Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe. Do I intervene? In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.

tomatotomato37 5y ago

If that Russian oligarch is deluded into believing MAD is now obsolete due to some top secret technology or military maneuver or whatever than all bets are off

gaetgu 5y ago
I doubt it. I really don't think he would choose a nuclear option, but rather an option in which his Russian troops fight NATO to the very end, something like Japan in the end of WWII. Except that this time, we can't use nukes.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
That's what has been causing more tension than the actual nukes for a while now - effective countermeasures, or ICBM countermeasures. If one party has an effective countermeasure against ICBMs, it takes away MAD and the one holding the countermeasure gets to claim military superiority. Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).
- daedalus_f 5y ago
  I think fear of countermeasures unbalancing MAD is also what’s driving development of Russia’s non-ballistic missile based warhead delivery systems, like status-6 [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos...

leto_ii 5y ago

> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are). As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.

gls2ro 5y ago
I dont understand how someone in the western world could read history and still believe that doing exactly what they did at the start of WW2 will bring a different result.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  I just don't think that Putin in 2022 is Hitler in 1939. Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    That might not necessarily be the case. Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry. Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it. They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.
    - ThalesX 5y ago
      The propaganda, both in the west and in the east have made this matter very hard to understand for the average citizen.
    - MockObject 5y ago
      Their economy is a little bit larger than the NY state economy.

lm28469 5y ago

If people were rational we wouldn't have had two world wars, Putin himself mentioned nuclear war a few times recently

rurp 5y ago

War is complicated, confusing, and messy. An all out conflict greatly increases the odds of a situation where Putin thinks a nuclear attack is imminent and decides to strike first. Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?

cincoantes 5y ago

adamsmith143 5y ago

> But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion. I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation. Did I profit?

rossmohax 5y ago
Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.
- kjkjadksj 5y ago
  There is no chance of survival. As soon as your missiles leave the earth or the sea, the enemy launches their entire salvo before your strike has time to hit its targets, and the world ends.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  Yes, it's called MAD. I think it's been settled fact for decades that any country launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear armed country will be in turn annihilated. There is no survival.

notyourday 5y ago

> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion. This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.

hnfong 5y ago

> The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved. All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too. Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe. Do I intervene? In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.