9 ms·

“[Able Archer] sounded no alarm bells in the U.S. Indications and Warning system. United States commanders on the scene were not aware of any pronounced superpo

by jibe 4y ago

“[Able Archer] sounded no alarm bells in the U.S. Indications and Warning system. United States commanders on the scene were not aware of any pronounced superpower tension, and the Soviet activities were not seen in their totality until long after the exercise was over” This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
If they were scared NATO was about to preemptively attack them, they probably wouldn't be moving air defense missiles out of Russia (including as far away as St. Petersburg) [1] to move them to Ukraine. But if you really want to worry about this, you don't need to consider the current war in Ukraine. You could look at this article from 2017 that describes a long-term plan to equip the U.S. submarine missile fleet with "superfuze" warheads that can accurately destroy hardened missile silos, which completely changes the strategic balance against Russia, in a way that might make things more dangerous for everyone [2]. [1] https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersburg-to-ukraine-238614 https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersbur... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
- morpheos137 4y ago
  Conventional air defense missiles don't amount to much in case of nuclear war.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 4y ago
    In this case, hasn't NATO all but said their response to a nuclear escalation would be an overwhelming conventional strike.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - euroderf 4y ago
      Petraeus said it this week, probably with the blessing of ex-colleagues still in government. Yes the appropriate response is to respond with overwhelming conventional force, being careful not to threaten strategic assets that might be misinterpreted as a decapitation/pre-emptive strategic strike that requires a hair-trigger response.
FredPret 4y ago
I sure hope the NSA is right up in his grille
- wishfish 4y ago
  There seems to be at least one high-ish level FSB agent talking to us. Considering current levels of Russian corruption, there's probably more than one.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    It's not just corruption. There are a bunch of people in Russia who are very unhappy about the current situation. Also, a lot of people just blab into their mobile phones.
bandyaboot 4y ago
Hopefully someone is thinking clearly enough to realize how stupid and unlikely it would be for Putin’s external enemies to attempt something like that at this moment. Putin’s standing in Russia is as tenuous as it has ever been and getting worse with each day. The only play at the moment is to watch and see if he manages to wriggle out of the noose.
excalibur 4y ago
> This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them. I have many concerns about the current situation. For example Zelensky's frequent requests for things that would definitively mean WW3 if he actually got them, and the popular misconception that one must be ready to wage all-out total war to defend Ukraine or else you're on Putin's side. But all of our problems are amplified by the American penchant for cluelessness about what our adversaries are really thinking.
- leobg 4y ago
  Yes. It’s the opposite of Robert McNamara’s rule number one: “Empathize with your opponent” (by which he meant not sympathy but putting oneself in his shoes). See the documentary “Fog Of War”.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. They didn't stop after Georgia. They didn't stop after Crimea and Donbass. They won't willingly stop now. Either Russia loses now or loses later. No matter what, the Russian state will collapse. Only question is whether or not anyone follows Putin and just how suicidal they are...
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense. If we give them the territory they hold today they're in no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. I don't support appeasement in any way, but that isn't the road to WWIII.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      Sure, there's no WWIII if we just give all the imperialistic madmen what they want. What could go wrong? ... Ok, no, I won't be sarcastic. That's quite possibly the only worse outcome than WW3. > no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. Bear in mind this is only true because of the relentless resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by the material and economic support of the west (granted, a lot of the Russian military was still in rough shape, but they would have been in a much better position to discover and fix that on their time if Ukraine had fallen quickly). If not for both of those factors together, Russia would be smacking its lips after Ukraine and looking for its next meal. We've already had to call a lot of nuclear bluffing to get here to this point where we're neither appeasing Putin or launching nukes at him.

by jibe 4y ago

matthewdgreen 4y ago

If they were scared NATO was about to preemptively attack them, they probably wouldn't be moving air defense missiles out of Russia (including as far away as St. Petersburg) [1] to move them to Ukraine. But if you really want to worry about this, you don't need to consider the current war in Ukraine. You could look at this article from 2017 that describes a long-term plan to equip the U.S. submarine missile fleet with "superfuze" warheads that can accurately destroy hardened missile silos, which completely changes the strategic balance against Russia, in a way that might make things more dangerous for everyone [2]. [1] https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersburg-to-ukraine-238614 https://bnn-news.com/russia-moves-missiles-from-st-petersbur... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...

morpheos137 4y ago
Conventional air defense missiles don't amount to much in case of nuclear war.
- SimbaOnSteroids 4y ago
  In this case, hasn't NATO all but said their response to a nuclear escalation would be an overwhelming conventional strike.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - euroderf 4y ago
    Petraeus said it this week, probably with the blessing of ex-colleagues still in government. Yes the appropriate response is to respond with overwhelming conventional force, being careful not to threaten strategic assets that might be misinterpreted as a decapitation/pre-emptive strategic strike that requires a hair-trigger response.

FredPret 4y ago

I sure hope the NSA is right up in his grille

wishfish 4y ago
There seems to be at least one high-ish level FSB agent talking to us. Considering current levels of Russian corruption, there's probably more than one.
- hodgesrm 4y ago
  It's not just corruption. There are a bunch of people in Russia who are very unhappy about the current situation. Also, a lot of people just blab into their mobile phones.

bandyaboot 4y ago

Hopefully someone is thinking clearly enough to realize how stupid and unlikely it would be for Putin’s external enemies to attempt something like that at this moment. Putin’s standing in Russia is as tenuous as it has ever been and getting worse with each day. The only play at the moment is to watch and see if he manages to wriggle out of the noose.

excalibur 4y ago

> This is my concern about the current tensions around Ukraine - we really have no idea what's going on in Putin's head or his inner circle. They could be calmly bluffing, or suicidal, or scared we are about to preemptively assassinate them. I have many concerns about the current situation. For example Zelensky's frequent requests for things that would definitively mean WW3 if he actually got them, and the popular misconception that one must be ready to wage all-out total war to defend Ukraine or else you're on Putin's side. But all of our problems are amplified by the American penchant for cluelessness about what our adversaries are really thinking.

leobg 4y ago
Yes. It’s the opposite of Robert McNamara’s rule number one: “Empathize with your opponent” (by which he meant not sympathy but putting oneself in his shoes). See the documentary “Fog Of War”.
Mikeb85 4y ago
The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. They didn't stop after Georgia. They didn't stop after Crimea and Donbass. They won't willingly stop now. Either Russia loses now or loses later. No matter what, the Russian state will collapse. Only question is whether or not anyone follows Putin and just how suicidal they are...
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia. I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense. If we give them the territory they hold today they're in no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. I don't support appeasement in any way, but that isn't the road to WWIII.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Sure, there's no WWIII if we just give all the imperialistic madmen what they want. What could go wrong? ... Ok, no, I won't be sarcastic. That's quite possibly the only worse outcome than WW3. > no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII. Bear in mind this is only true because of the relentless resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by the material and economic support of the west (granted, a lot of the Russian military was still in rough shape, but they would have been in a much better position to discover and fix that on their time if Ukraine had fallen quickly). If not for both of those factors together, Russia would be smacking its lips after Ukraine and looking for its next meal. We've already had to call a lot of nuclear bluffing to get here to this point where we're neither appeasing Putin or launching nukes at him.