4 ms·

I mostly agree with you, except I don't believe that MAD is a sufficient deterrent, or that low level conflict is unlikely to evolve into large scale war. The

by Msw242 4y ago

I mostly agree with you, except I don't believe that MAD is a sufficient deterrent, or that low level conflict is unlikely to evolve into large scale war. The best way, in my mind to minimize conflict is through a global monopoly on violence, one street gang to rule them all This is what the last 30 years have been

bilbo0s 4y ago
This is what the last 30 years have been Only they haven't. The reason the US and Russia haven't run rampant the last 30 years is because the US and Russia can blow each other away. So Russia satisfies itself with Georgia and now Ukraine. And the US satisfies itself with those nations in the MidEast region. Remove Russia, and the US would have been all over the yard. Remove the US, and Russia would have been all over the yard. And now with the rise of China, mankind is even safer. Not only that, but more of mankind have begun to enjoy the benefits of safety. The US and Russia were perfectly willing to fight a proxy war in Korea 70 years ago. They wouldn't dare do that today. Why? The Chinese presence in any MAD calculations. Today Africa is much safer, it is developing much faster. A large part of the reason for that is the presence of China. Now instead of proxy wars, the great powers compete to see who can deliver Africa the most undersea bandwidth for instance. This is a much better situation for Africans than the situation that existed when only the US and Russia were superpowers. And this situation exists because of MAD. It proves that an armed society is a polite society. The US, China and Russia are all fulfilling their responsibility to keep the peace by maintaining lethal arsenals of weapons of mass destruction so that they are each confident in their own ability to destroy the others. And that is good for all of us "little people" in the world. Whether we are American, Chinese or Russian. (And even good for us if we are Korean, African, or from South America.)
- coliveira 4y ago
  I agree. The result of N. Korea acquiring nuclear weapons was the cessation of the idea of direct war against the Korean regime. I believe if Iran already had nukes we wouldn't be talking about the possibility of war there, either.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The difficult calculus with Iran is trying to decide if they're actually pious enough to immolate themselves to take out Israel. Or whether a group could come to power who might be. North Korea is insane in its own way, but hereditary personality cults do have a history of acting in the interest of self-preservation.
ethbr0 4y ago
Russia specifically developed their "de-escalation" policy of tactical nuclear weapons use under MAD assumptions. Basically, betting that there were scenarios where the US wouldn't risk escalation to nuclear war in response to a calibrated Russian tactical nuclear strike in a third party country, thus allowing Russian nuclear effects to nullify superior western precision weapons without consequence. https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian-military-doctrine-calls-a-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation-heres-why/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian-military-doctrine-ca...
- coliveira 4y ago
  > superior western precision weapons At this point there is no support for the idea that US weapons have superior precision. The Russian campaign is showing the opposite.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    O_o A) NATO's air campaign in the Kosovo War (1999) certainly scared the shit out of Russia. B) That Russia is currently bombarding Ukrainian cities with repurposed surface to air missiles doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to produce sufficient quantities of precision missiles for even a moderate scale conflict. C) The majority of Ukrainian platforms at this point still aren't Western, and thus incapable of firing NATO precision ordinance.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    Russian MLRS’s certainly fire rockets that have a much lower precision then modern US systems (HIMARS/M270). Here’s a good video showing the difference. https://mobile.twitter.com/revishvilig/status/1540264761329274883 https://mobile.twitter.com/revishvilig/status/15402647613292...

by Msw242 4y ago

bilbo0s 4y ago

This is what the last 30 years have been Only they haven't. The reason the US and Russia haven't run rampant the last 30 years is because the US and Russia can blow each other away. So Russia satisfies itself with Georgia and now Ukraine. And the US satisfies itself with those nations in the MidEast region. Remove Russia, and the US would have been all over the yard. Remove the US, and Russia would have been all over the yard. And now with the rise of China, mankind is even safer. Not only that, but more of mankind have begun to enjoy the benefits of safety. The US and Russia were perfectly willing to fight a proxy war in Korea 70 years ago. They wouldn't dare do that today. Why? The Chinese presence in any MAD calculations. Today Africa is much safer, it is developing much faster. A large part of the reason for that is the presence of China. Now instead of proxy wars, the great powers compete to see who can deliver Africa the most undersea bandwidth for instance. This is a much better situation for Africans than the situation that existed when only the US and Russia were superpowers. And this situation exists because of MAD. It proves that an armed society is a polite society. The US, China and Russia are all fulfilling their responsibility to keep the peace by maintaining lethal arsenals of weapons of mass destruction so that they are each confident in their own ability to destroy the others. And that is good for all of us "little people" in the world. Whether we are American, Chinese or Russian. (And even good for us if we are Korean, African, or from South America.)

coliveira 4y ago
I agree. The result of N. Korea acquiring nuclear weapons was the cessation of the idea of direct war against the Korean regime. I believe if Iran already had nukes we wouldn't be talking about the possibility of war there, either.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The difficult calculus with Iran is trying to decide if they're actually pious enough to immolate themselves to take out Israel. Or whether a group could come to power who might be. North Korea is insane in its own way, but hereditary personality cults do have a history of acting in the interest of self-preservation.

ethbr0 4y ago

Russia specifically developed their "de-escalation" policy of tactical nuclear weapons use under MAD assumptions. Basically, betting that there were scenarios where the US wouldn't risk escalation to nuclear war in response to a calibrated Russian tactical nuclear strike in a third party country, thus allowing Russian nuclear effects to nullify superior western precision weapons without consequence. https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian-military-doctrine-calls-a-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation-heres-why/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russian-military-doctrine-ca...

coliveira 4y ago
> superior western precision weapons At this point there is no support for the idea that US weapons have superior precision. The Russian campaign is showing the opposite.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  O_o A) NATO's air campaign in the Kosovo War (1999) certainly scared the shit out of Russia. B) That Russia is currently bombarding Ukrainian cities with repurposed surface to air missiles doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to produce sufficient quantities of precision missiles for even a moderate scale conflict. C) The majority of Ukrainian platforms at this point still aren't Western, and thus incapable of firing NATO precision ordinance.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  Russian MLRS’s certainly fire rockets that have a much lower precision then modern US systems (HIMARS/M270). Here’s a good video showing the difference. https://mobile.twitter.com/revishvilig/status/1540264761329274883 https://mobile.twitter.com/revishvilig/status/15402647613292...