4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - nradov 5y ago
    This is just so naive and unrealistic that I don't understand how anyone could believe it. You can't count on adversaries acting with dignity when they have core interests at stake. In the future more countries will acquire nuclear weapons, or ally with nuclear powers, specifically because of what happened to Ukraine.
    - js8 5y ago
      I think you can make a better counter-argument than "it's unrealistic, people are stupid and they won't do it". The idea that more nukes are making the world safer is like the idea that everybody having a gun is making USA safer. There has been some progress on this in recent years, see https://www.icanw.org/ https://www.icanw.org/. And in fact the nuclear arsenals of USA and Russia have been (albeit too slowly) reducing over the past 30 years. But more governments (NATO expansion) relying on nukes for their security (which is a false sense) is a pretty big setback.
      - nradov 5y ago
        It's not a matter of stupidity at all, it's purely self interest. Giving up nukes is irrational when they're such an effective tool. The USA and Russia reduced their arsenals primarily as a cost savings measure. Keeping the weapons systems operating is shockingly expensive. Modern delivery systems are more accurate so we can now ensure MAD with fewer warheads.
        js8 5y ago
        I think I already addressed "rational self-interest" (and how it can lead to stupidity) elsewhere in the thread. It's not an end-all be-all of human nature.

by js8 5y ago

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.
- nradov 5y ago
  This is just so naive and unrealistic that I don't understand how anyone could believe it. You can't count on adversaries acting with dignity when they have core interests at stake. In the future more countries will acquire nuclear weapons, or ally with nuclear powers, specifically because of what happened to Ukraine.
  - js8 5y ago
    I think you can make a better counter-argument than "it's unrealistic, people are stupid and they won't do it". The idea that more nukes are making the world safer is like the idea that everybody having a gun is making USA safer. There has been some progress on this in recent years, see https://www.icanw.org/ https://www.icanw.org/. And in fact the nuclear arsenals of USA and Russia have been (albeit too slowly) reducing over the past 30 years. But more governments (NATO expansion) relying on nukes for their security (which is a false sense) is a pretty big setback.
    - nradov 5y ago
      It's not a matter of stupidity at all, it's purely self interest. Giving up nukes is irrational when they're such an effective tool. The USA and Russia reduced their arsenals primarily as a cost savings measure. Keeping the weapons systems operating is shockingly expensive. Modern delivery systems are more accurate so we can now ensure MAD with fewer warheads.
      - js8 5y ago
        I think I already addressed "rational self-interest" (and how it can lead to stupidity) elsewhere in the thread. It's not an end-all be-all of human nature.