4 ms·
Bit of a tangent, but the 'mutually assured destruction' meme is a cold-war-era concept relying on some strong assumptions - namely that any country would be ab
by t_mann 4y ago
Bit of a tangent, but the 'mutually assured destruction' meme is a cold-war-era concept relying on some strong assumptions - namely that any country would be able to credibly claim that they could take out US strike capabilities in the first place.
Russia claims to have inherited that capability from the Soviet union, but that claim looks increasingly suspicious, with the war in Ukraine exposing not only systemic corruption in the Russian military, but also near-total failure on the intelligence front: officials were lining their pockets with funds destined to maintain and enhance military capabilities, and Russian generals were greeted with precision strikes upon arrival in Ukraine. If they can't keep their sh*t secret from Ukraine, how could they hope to keep a nuclear launch order secret from the US? A nuclear arsenal also requires expensive upkeep to remain functional, money that might also have been used to buy fancy appartments and yachts in London, Cyprus,... At this point it's questionable whether Russia would even be able to launch a succesful first strike and not see it intercepted by the US (they might still be able to land more than zero succesful strikes, but taking out US strike capabilities is a wholly different ball game).
Of course it's possible that other players might rise to be a threat, but basically I'm saying we should first check how realistic the scenario is before analyzing the whole situation through the lens of those overly simplified game theory models.
- krisoft 4y ago> namely that any country would be able to credibly claim that they could take out US strike capabilities in the first place. That has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction. MAD is about: “you strike at us? We will detect it and strike back at you destroying your cities. Our people might all die, but your people will too.” It does not assume that any party can take out the strike force of any other party.
- l5870uoo9y 4y agoAnd even if a significant percentage of the around 6000 Russian nuclear warheads aren't functional (due to various reasons), the sheer amount is a credible deterrence.
- nix23 4y ago>'mutually assured destruction' meme is a cold-war-era concept relying on some strong assumptions - namely that any country would be able to credibly claim that they could take out US strike capabilities in the first place. No, it just means that the Soviets or the US can take each other out. That's why first-strike weapons where so important and ""too" much countermeasures against them was kind of "badly regarded". And it was no "meme" but official politics, until Ronald Reagan and his star-wars program, where the end goal was not a stalemate towards the Soviets but the destruction of their capability to deliver aka "100% protection from soviet ICBM's"
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago> Russian generals were greeted with precision strikes upon arrival in Ukraine. If they can't keep their sh*t secret from Ukraine, how could they hope to keep a nuclear launch order secret from the US? It's worth noting that the targeting information for these strikes came from the US.[0] Officials in the Biden administration first boasted about the role of US intelligence in these strikes, but the administration then decided that acknowledging US involvement in strikes on Russian generals is unwise.[1] 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-genera... 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/09/us/politics/biden-lend-lease-ukraine-weapons-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/09/us/politics/biden-lend-le...
- GordonS 4y ago> It's worth noting that the targeting information for these strikes came from the US Hmm, dubious; surely if the targeting info came from the US, then the Ukrainians would have blown up several of their own hospitals, schools, wedding parties etc?!
- muchtest 4y agoI've heard this dangerous narrative down playing dangers of nuclear war from people who have never experienced a total war before & are leaning into narratives spread by the military-industrial complex. However many failures the Russian military may have, all it takes is 1 missile hitting a major city and you'll see more deaths in the US than have been seen in all the wars it fought combined.
- postsantum 4y agoI don't think MIC would support this, I think they are at least somewhat competent and it's in their interest to disseminate FUD, not the "russia weak" narrative. The latter is something that would have come out of reddit's heavily censored echo chamber
- muchtest 4y agoThere are two narratives being told - one to the top brass to increase investment and one to gen population of not to worry we're going to win so don't be a defeatist/pacifist/collaborator.
- _y5hn 4y agoLook into the Nuclear Triad. States with this capability can strike at any time by missile, aircraft and subs. There's no chance to take out strike capabilities.
- baybal2 4y ago