4 ms·

Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet fam

by kodah 5y ago

Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet familiar chess game and a side war that is mostly anti-war propaganda, pro-Russia propaganda, misinformation, and attacks on IOT and public infrastructure that exhaust the citizenry out of watching the fighting.

DubiousPusher 5y ago
Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.
- bb88 5y ago
  Exactly. When it comes to unloading your nuclear arsenal, it's not the war that's the problem -- it's the escalation.
csee 5y ago
Then when Putin starts losing and faces a coup from disgruntled people at home? You sure that megalomaniac won't decide to go nuclear when pushed into a corner?
- asdff 5y ago
  One would hope that if the people in the streets are protesting then higher ups in the russian state would also be unlikely to go down with Putin. Just like Hitler's most trusted generals readily surrendering to advancing allies to ensure favorable terms for their soldiers.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    That's when the generals start talking about a "limited nuclear war", and talk about survivability. The leaders don't need to be convinced that there will be small numbers of casualties, just that their country can survive or even come out stronger than their adversaries And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality. Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war. https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-team-to-expand-nuclear-options/ https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t... But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by kodah 5y ago

DubiousPusher 5y ago

Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.

bb88 5y ago
Exactly. When it comes to unloading your nuclear arsenal, it's not the war that's the problem -- it's the escalation.

csee 5y ago

Then when Putin starts losing and faces a coup from disgruntled people at home? You sure that megalomaniac won't decide to go nuclear when pushed into a corner?

asdff 5y ago
One would hope that if the people in the streets are protesting then higher ups in the russian state would also be unlikely to go down with Putin. Just like Hitler's most trusted generals readily surrendering to advancing allies to ensure favorable terms for their soldiers.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  That's when the generals start talking about a "limited nuclear war", and talk about survivability. The leaders don't need to be convinced that there will be small numbers of casualties, just that their country can survive or even come out stronger than their adversaries And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality. Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war. https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-team-to-expand-nuclear-options/ https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t... But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]