3 ms·

This could be a play to force a mediated settlement. Playing on the fear of a nuclear escalation to force mediation by the NATO/China. A similar occurrence hap

by lumost 5y ago

This could be a play to force a mediated settlement. Playing on the fear of a nuclear escalation to force mediation by the NATO/China. A similar occurrence happened in the 1980s with South Africa's nuclear weapons. Unfortunately as the second largest nuclear power acting as a belligerent, such a threat could plausibly draw NATO directly into the conflict. I don't see a world where a country uses nukes in Europe without triggering a full NATO response. I also don't see a world where NATO negotiates under nuclear threat, to do so would present a long-term risk that Russia believes NATO will cave to nuclear threats and pushes the issue again.

Mirioron 5y ago
One of the scenarios I keep thinking about is what if either side uses just one nuke. They let the other side know that they're going to use just one and do it. Do you respond to that with your full arsenal? Do you go tit-for-tat? Do you just let them get away with it?
- tacon 5y ago
  Echoes of the plot of Fail Safe[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film)
- lumost 5y ago
  This was a common war game scenario in the Cold War. NATO semi-intentionally adopted the strategy that they would have enough troops in western Europe to fight an invasion, but that they would need tactical nukes to block the invasion. NATO war games were then focused on how the conflict escalates, with the general conclusion that both sides would engage in tit for tat strikes until some threshold was triggered and a full nuclear war broke out (Use it or lose it scenario). A close example to your scenario was South Africa's nuclear arsenal as well as (potentially) Israel's. The game theory somewhat works out if the belligerent party only has a few nukes and would be unable to escalate to full nuclear war due to lack of weapons. It's considered a dangerous and unstable scenario as such parties could actually use nukes without fear of MAD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_credibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_cre...
  - Mirioron 5y ago
    Is this why the US has focused so much on the ability to shoot down ICBMs? Because if they can shoot down even just a few tit-for-tat doesn't really work against them anymore.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      No, that just pushes the opponent to throw all of their stuff at you.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  This is why you have a preprogrammed unstoppable retaliatory doomsday counter weapon. Just remember to inform the other side about it before first strike.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    In case someone doesn't get it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

by lumost 5y ago

Mirioron 5y ago

One of the scenarios I keep thinking about is what if either side uses just one nuke. They let the other side know that they're going to use just one and do it. Do you respond to that with your full arsenal? Do you go tit-for-tat? Do you just let them get away with it?

tacon 5y ago
Echoes of the plot of Fail Safe[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film)
lumost 5y ago
This was a common war game scenario in the Cold War. NATO semi-intentionally adopted the strategy that they would have enough troops in western Europe to fight an invasion, but that they would need tactical nukes to block the invasion. NATO war games were then focused on how the conflict escalates, with the general conclusion that both sides would engage in tit for tat strikes until some threshold was triggered and a full nuclear war broke out (Use it or lose it scenario). A close example to your scenario was South Africa's nuclear arsenal as well as (potentially) Israel's. The game theory somewhat works out if the belligerent party only has a few nukes and would be unable to escalate to full nuclear war due to lack of weapons. It's considered a dangerous and unstable scenario as such parties could actually use nukes without fear of MAD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_credibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_cre...
- Mirioron 5y ago
  Is this why the US has focused so much on the ability to shoot down ICBMs? Because if they can shoot down even just a few tit-for-tat doesn't really work against them anymore.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, that just pushes the opponent to throw all of their stuff at you.
tedunangst 5y ago
This is why you have a preprogrammed unstoppable retaliatory doomsday counter weapon. Just remember to inform the other side about it before first strike.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  In case someone doesn't get it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove