4 ms·

There is absolutely no precedent in human history for two fairly equal powers engaging in a conflict and one side refusing in totality to use almost any weapon

There is absolutely no precedent in human history for two fairly equal powers engaging in a conflict and one side refusing in totality to use almost any weapon at its disposal and certainly not one that an enemy has already used. Japan did not nuke America back in 1945 because it did not have a nuke and had lost all air superiority.

PolygonSheep 5y ago
The Allies and Nazi Germany both refusing to use chemical weapons during WWII? They both had chemical weapons stockpiled but neither side wanted to go there after WWI.
- czhu12 5y ago
  Bret Devereaux discusses this at length here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... In short, we didn't stop using chemical weapons because of ethics (if thats the case, we should've given up landmines, which kill far more civilians). Rather, chemical weapons are expensive to operate and ineffective weapons in modern battlefields. Here is the relevant snippet from the blog: "During WWII, everyone seems to have expected the use of chemical weapons, but never actually found a situation where doing so was advantageous. This is often phrased in terms of fears of escalation (this usually comes packaged with the idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but that’s an anachronism – while Bernard Brodie is sniffing around the ideas of what would become MAD as early as ’46, MAD itself only emerges after ’62). Retaliation was certainly a concern, but I think it is hard to argue that the combatants in WWII hadn’t already been pushed to the limits of their escalation capability, in a war where the first terror bombing happened on the first day. German death-squads were in the initial invasion-waves in both Poland, as were Soviet death squads in their invasion of Poland in concert with the Germans and also later in the war. WWII was an existential war, all of the states involved knew it by 1941 (if not earlier), and they all escalated to the peak of their ability from the start; I find it hard to believe that, had they thought it was really a war winner, any of the powers in the war would have refrained from using chemical weapons. The British feared escalation to a degree (but also thought that chemical weapons use would squander valuable support in occupied France), but I struggle to imagine that, with the Nazis at the very gates of Moscow, Stalin was moved either by escalation concerns or the moral compass he so clearly lacked at every other moment of his life."
aksss 5y ago
I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some of the comments from RCMP about recent horse tramplings, etc and are pretty shocked that these guys are all in on state use of force. I'm not singling out the RCMP, because you can see it in the US policing and probably any country (remember the t-shirt, "We get up early to beat the crowds"?), but it's a fresh example. People like to think those in the military and police are our neighbors and thus must be "on our side", and some are - but you gotta remember that these guys are purposefully trained to obey, and suffer a lot of hardship daily seeing the worst examples of society's degradation - such that "restoration of order" and "compliance" are righteous causes that they all too frequently cannot affect. The opportunity comes and maybe they're all too ready/eager to do so - pent up frustration and all. Again, I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush or make absolutist statements, but if that guy's job is to hit the "launch" button, rest assured that he's been through a few powerpoint presentations coaching him on how to deal with his second thoughts in the moment and been exposed to a lot of conditioning to impress expectations upon him. For "men of action", whether state-sponsored or not, part of the training/learning process is to be able to turn off visceral reaction and just get the job done - you are practiced in recognizing inconvenient and distracting thoughts as an impediment that you can power through, the same as a runner trains himself to break through bonking. So not only are we talking about individuals acting in opposition to their understood purpose in life, but add to that the social/peer pressure in the moment, add to that the guy with the 1911 pointed at his head when he shows hesitation. shrug
- solotronics 5y ago
  Thank God there are multiple real world examples of officers getting the order to fire a nuke and disobeying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago

PolygonSheep 5y ago

The Allies and Nazi Germany both refusing to use chemical weapons during WWII? They both had chemical weapons stockpiled but neither side wanted to go there after WWI.

czhu12 5y ago
Bret Devereaux discusses this at length here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... In short, we didn't stop using chemical weapons because of ethics (if thats the case, we should've given up landmines, which kill far more civilians). Rather, chemical weapons are expensive to operate and ineffective weapons in modern battlefields. Here is the relevant snippet from the blog: "During WWII, everyone seems to have expected the use of chemical weapons, but never actually found a situation where doing so was advantageous. This is often phrased in terms of fears of escalation (this usually comes packaged with the idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but that’s an anachronism – while Bernard Brodie is sniffing around the ideas of what would become MAD as early as ’46, MAD itself only emerges after ’62). Retaliation was certainly a concern, but I think it is hard to argue that the combatants in WWII hadn’t already been pushed to the limits of their escalation capability, in a war where the first terror bombing happened on the first day. German death-squads were in the initial invasion-waves in both Poland, as were Soviet death squads in their invasion of Poland in concert with the Germans and also later in the war. WWII was an existential war, all of the states involved knew it by 1941 (if not earlier), and they all escalated to the peak of their ability from the start; I find it hard to believe that, had they thought it was really a war winner, any of the powers in the war would have refrained from using chemical weapons. The British feared escalation to a degree (but also thought that chemical weapons use would squander valuable support in occupied France), but I struggle to imagine that, with the Nazis at the very gates of Moscow, Stalin was moved either by escalation concerns or the moral compass he so clearly lacked at every other moment of his life."

aksss 5y ago

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some of the comments from RCMP about recent horse tramplings, etc and are pretty shocked that these guys are all in on state use of force. I'm not singling out the RCMP, because you can see it in the US policing and probably any country (remember the t-shirt, "We get up early to beat the crowds"?), but it's a fresh example. People like to think those in the military and police are our neighbors and thus must be "on our side", and some are - but you gotta remember that these guys are purposefully trained to obey, and suffer a lot of hardship daily seeing the worst examples of society's degradation - such that "restoration of order" and "compliance" are righteous causes that they all too frequently cannot affect. The opportunity comes and maybe they're all too ready/eager to do so - pent up frustration and all. Again, I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush or make absolutist statements, but if that guy's job is to hit the "launch" button, rest assured that he's been through a few powerpoint presentations coaching him on how to deal with his second thoughts in the moment and been exposed to a lot of conditioning to impress expectations upon him. For "men of action", whether state-sponsored or not, part of the training/learning process is to be able to turn off visceral reaction and just get the job done - you are practiced in recognizing inconvenient and distracting thoughts as an impediment that you can power through, the same as a runner trains himself to break through bonking. So not only are we talking about individuals acting in opposition to their understood purpose in life, but add to that the social/peer pressure in the moment, add to that the guy with the 1911 pointed at his head when he shows hesitation. shrug

solotronics 5y ago
Thank God there are multiple real world examples of officers getting the order to fire a nuke and disobeying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
- DubiousPusher 5y ago