3 ms·

The MAD thing really just applies to Russia (China too I guess?). France was in Africa pretty recently as a non-NATO involvement [1]. The United Kingdom faced o

The MAD thing really just applies to Russia (China too I guess?). France was in Africa pretty recently as a non-NATO involvement [1]. The United Kingdom faced off against Argentina in the 80s as well [2]. What do you envision a non-NATO EU army would be doing in Ukraine that isn't currently being done? Without the United States backing up the EU wouldn't Russia just threaten EU member states and make them back off? It kind of seems to me that NATO is what's keeping Europe from breaking out into a war outside of just Ukraine. Why wouldn't Russia invade Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? What would Germany do about it? What if Russia sank France's aircraft carrier? Would they still continue the fight? Not to mention the ability of the U.S. to do logistics to help European countries supply weapons to Ukraine to help them fight. Hell, nobody in Europe believed Russia was going to do it while the United States and United Kingdom were screaming bloody murder about it. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/why-has-france-been-war-decade-west-african-desert-2022-02-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/why-has-france-been-war-decade... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

pmoriarty 5y ago
"The MAD thing really just applies to Russia (China too I guess?)." And North Korea, and soon possibly Iran. It's not clear how much longer the nuclear genie can be kept bottled up. Belarus is already asking for its nukes back from Russia. It's likely that other countries that feel threatened may start pursuing their own nuclear programs now that they see how vulnerable non-nuclear nations are to attack. In the long term, technological advances will concentrate ever more power in the hands of the few, and MAD may start applying to other technologies, not just nukes.
js8 5y ago
To the largest extent, MAD applies to Russia and USA, they have by far the most nukes. I am Czech and this war convinced me to be against our membership in NATO, which I think is ill-conceived, for the following reasons: 1. We should have our own defense, both on national and EU, and not rely on USA, who might have different interests, and is not always making us safer. USA might accidentally provoke Russia (their archenemy) or they might decide not to get involved in our defense for political reasons (actually, in democracy, it should be their right), leaving us exposed. 2. NATO causes proliferation of nuclear weapons, by expanding the trigger area, and also stations nukes in countries that don't own them. I favor a complete denuclearization of the world, IMHO MAD is a crazy theory that relies on rationality of people involved too much. 3. European NATO members are at this moment incapable of stronger (military) help to Ukraine, because of the nuclear (MAD) threat. NATO is now actually a reason why we cannot fight Russian invaders the same way Allies did fight against Nazi Germany.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > European NATO members are at this moment incapable of stronger (military) help to Ukraine, because of the nuclear (MAD) threat. NATO is now actually a reason why we cannot fight Russian invaders the same way Allies did fight against Nazi Germany. MAD is only the problem here to the extent one assumes that the US nuclear shield, and MAD, still protects you from nuclear escalation by Russia in the event of nuclear escalation by Russia if you are out of NATO. Otherwise, the problem shifts from MAD to unilateral assured destruction, which is an even bigger constraint on your action against Russia’s whims.
  - js8 5y ago
    No, the hope is, if say, Germany and all the North and Eastern Europe is out of NATO, they would make their own coalition, which would be non-nuclear and could go to war directly, to defend Ukraine better. The MAD not working properly complicates the situation, yes, but then our only other choice is capitulation to Russia. As I said, long-term, I favor complete nuke ban in which NATO is not helping (largely due to lack of US willingness), unfortunately.
    - google234123 5y ago
      Russia would be happy to nuke what they call “nazis”.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > No, the hope is, if say, Germany and all the North and Eastern Europe is out of NATO, they would make their own coalition, which would be non-nuclear and could go to war directly, to defend Ukraine better. A non-nuclear coalition faces unilateral assured destruction against a major nuclear power unless the latter is deterred from nuclear escalation by an outside force (in practice, another major nuclear power.) > As I said, long-term, I favor complete nuke ban Sure, and once you have accomplished and permanently secured compliance with that, your non-nuclear coalition could work for situations like the present one (but then, all existing coalitions would also be non-nuclear.)
    - 5y ago

pmoriarty 5y ago

"The MAD thing really just applies to Russia (China too I guess?)." And North Korea, and soon possibly Iran. It's not clear how much longer the nuclear genie can be kept bottled up. Belarus is already asking for its nukes back from Russia. It's likely that other countries that feel threatened may start pursuing their own nuclear programs now that they see how vulnerable non-nuclear nations are to attack. In the long term, technological advances will concentrate ever more power in the hands of the few, and MAD may start applying to other technologies, not just nukes.

js8 5y ago

To the largest extent, MAD applies to Russia and USA, they have by far the most nukes. I am Czech and this war convinced me to be against our membership in NATO, which I think is ill-conceived, for the following reasons: 1. We should have our own defense, both on national and EU, and not rely on USA, who might have different interests, and is not always making us safer. USA might accidentally provoke Russia (their archenemy) or they might decide not to get involved in our defense for political reasons (actually, in democracy, it should be their right), leaving us exposed. 2. NATO causes proliferation of nuclear weapons, by expanding the trigger area, and also stations nukes in countries that don't own them. I favor a complete denuclearization of the world, IMHO MAD is a crazy theory that relies on rationality of people involved too much. 3. European NATO members are at this moment incapable of stronger (military) help to Ukraine, because of the nuclear (MAD) threat. NATO is now actually a reason why we cannot fight Russian invaders the same way Allies did fight against Nazi Germany.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> European NATO members are at this moment incapable of stronger (military) help to Ukraine, because of the nuclear (MAD) threat. NATO is now actually a reason why we cannot fight Russian invaders the same way Allies did fight against Nazi Germany. MAD is only the problem here to the extent one assumes that the US nuclear shield, and MAD, still protects you from nuclear escalation by Russia in the event of nuclear escalation by Russia if you are out of NATO. Otherwise, the problem shifts from MAD to unilateral assured destruction, which is an even bigger constraint on your action against Russia’s whims.
- js8 5y ago
  No, the hope is, if say, Germany and all the North and Eastern Europe is out of NATO, they would make their own coalition, which would be non-nuclear and could go to war directly, to defend Ukraine better. The MAD not working properly complicates the situation, yes, but then our only other choice is capitulation to Russia. As I said, long-term, I favor complete nuke ban in which NATO is not helping (largely due to lack of US willingness), unfortunately.
  - google234123 5y ago
    Russia would be happy to nuke what they call “nazis”.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > No, the hope is, if say, Germany and all the North and Eastern Europe is out of NATO, they would make their own coalition, which would be non-nuclear and could go to war directly, to defend Ukraine better. A non-nuclear coalition faces unilateral assured destruction against a major nuclear power unless the latter is deterred from nuclear escalation by an outside force (in practice, another major nuclear power.) > As I said, long-term, I favor complete nuke ban Sure, and once you have accomplished and permanently secured compliance with that, your non-nuclear coalition could work for situations like the present one (but then, all existing coalitions would also be non-nuclear.)
  - 5y ago