3 ms·

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 NAT

by 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.)
  - arroz 5y ago
    What makes you think Russia wouldn’t use nukes if an alliance of Western European states entered the war against them? Especially if they don’t have nukes to attack. Do you think Russia would just lose the war happily?
    - js8 5y ago
      Precedent of not using nukes before (excluding Hiroshima), not wanting to lose nukes against nuclear states, but most importantly, us treating our enemy with a modicum of dignity, just like Allies treated the Germans. If we truly believe that we are freeing Russia from oppressive dictatorship that got them into a war, it shouldn't be a big problem. I think all the game theory "rationality" is off the table anyways, because the very act of Ukrainian uprising against Russian invasion is already irrational (see ultimatum game). And the act of some other countries acting on Ukraine's behalf is irrational too. MAD is just a THEORY. Very nice mathematically, but the real world is much more nuanced. And IMHO it's a scarecrow used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons, which are just horrible and should be banned. Addendum: Hitler actually wanted to destroy Paris (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree), but it, almost by miracle (in reality it was brave work of different people involved) survived. We need to have a hope, but also get rid of all the nukes.

by js8 5y ago

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.)
- arroz 5y ago
  What makes you think Russia wouldn’t use nukes if an alliance of Western European states entered the war against them? Especially if they don’t have nukes to attack. Do you think Russia would just lose the war happily?
  - js8 5y ago
    Precedent of not using nukes before (excluding Hiroshima), not wanting to lose nukes against nuclear states, but most importantly, us treating our enemy with a modicum of dignity, just like Allies treated the Germans. If we truly believe that we are freeing Russia from oppressive dictatorship that got them into a war, it shouldn't be a big problem. I think all the game theory "rationality" is off the table anyways, because the very act of Ukrainian uprising against Russian invasion is already irrational (see ultimatum game). And the act of some other countries acting on Ukraine's behalf is irrational too. MAD is just a THEORY. Very nice mathematically, but the real world is much more nuanced. And IMHO it's a scarecrow used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons, which are just horrible and should be banned. Addendum: Hitler actually wanted to destroy Paris (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree), but it, almost by miracle (in reality it was brave work of different people involved) survived. We need to have a hope, but also get rid of all the nukes.