5 ms·

> Now imagine there have been hundreds of those “big ones.” That’s what even a “small” nuclear war would include. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe this is

> Now imagine there have been hundreds of those “big ones.” That’s what even a “small” nuclear war would include. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe this is a matter of definitions, but this feels alarmist to me. I have to think that there are many believable scenarios (e.g., in Ukraine) where "only" one to ten nuclear detonations would be employed. That seems like a "small" nuclear war and while it would undoubtably have many negative repercussions, it would not end world civilization.

ekianjo 4y ago
> have to think that there are many believable scenarios (e.g., in Ukraine) where "only" one to ten nuclear detonations would be employed. Why do you think it would not escalate? Do you have a crystal ball?
- benji-york 4y ago
  Why do you think it would escalate? Do you have a crystal ball? I don't know anything about anything, but there have been many regional conflicts over the last 100 years that have remained regional. I don't see how the technology used to fight those regional conflicts changes anything. Perhaps the social connotations of those technologies is significant enough that using some rather than others is "triggering" enough that non-combatants can't help but get involved. <shrug>
  - reflexco 4y ago
    Nuclear weapon use in a local conflict would be similar to someone unleashing a new coronavirus to win a local conflict. Due to its polluting non-local effects, it instantly paints a target on whoever uses it. This is also why "anonymous" terrorist nuclear bomb use would be very problematic.
    - benji-york 4y ago
      > polluting non-local effects I agree that these exist. I do not believe that they are as significant as the general public believes. After all, there have been more than 500 nuclear weapons detonated world-wide in the open atmosphere. [0] If these non-local effects are very large, why would we take Russia's threats of using nuclear weapons against a neighbor as credible? [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally
      - objectivetruth 4y ago
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > Why do you think it would escalate? Do you have a crystal ball? Even if the chance is tiny, you don't want to risk a nuclear conflict because there is no going back to the world that we live in after that. I am always dumbfounded at the lack of awareness that having a direct conflict with a nuclear power increases the risk of nuclear war.
- 3pt14159 4y ago
  It could, but it also could not. Try to imagine the different perspectives involved and their pre-drawn plans.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The US has the capability to devastate the Russian army and strategic Russian targets without the use of nukes or other WMD's. That seems the most rational and likely response to tactical nuclear use by Russia on a Ukrainian target. Not guaranteed, of course, but likely. Maintaining the moral high ground has significant value.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > The US has the capability to devastate the Russian army and strategic Russian targets without the use of nukes or other WMD's And what happens next? It's not like there is some kind of enforced rule that WMDs aren't to be used unless the other side doesn't use them. Strategic WMDs deter against a total loss to a foreign power, by any means, not just other WMDs, don't they?
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      There's a good chance that question would be answered by Putin's successor rather than Putin. The successor would have less face to lose in backing down.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > There's a good chance Based on what exactly? Like, how do you imagine a successor would appear while the US devastates Russian army and how would they "have less face to lose" when their military is devastated? It is unlikely that anyone will be replacing Putin in the heat of battle, and its hard to imagine a "less face to loose" situation - it's not like it's for one person to decide and Russian politics doesn't work that way either - there is no tradition to reset politics every few years with a new talking head. No idea how mr "Less face to lose" would be able to do something like that without starting a civil war.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > That seems the most rational and likely response to tactical nuclear use by Russia on a Ukrainian target. What matters is what happens next. Russia razing Europe and the US in nuclear fire if they feel they are cornered have nothing to lose. Good luck with pushing things this far.
mc32 4y ago
I find it amazing that we have people wringing their hands every year that the US dropped ‘tactical’ nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the biggest war ever. And how that is a lesson we should learn and burden we should carry, but in Ukraine, never mind, it’s no big deal. If it happens it happens. We can contain it. Keep up the pressure. If it pops, don’t worry, “We got this!” messaging we’re hearing. Just Wow!
- nickpp 4y ago
  I doubt anybody thinks "it’s no big deal". But in this game of high-stakes nuclear poker, if you communicate your fears and self-imposed limits to your enemy - you increase the chance he'll use them against you. After all, the MAD strategy did keep us safe during the cold war while giving up their nukes did bring Ukraine an invasion.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    > I doubt anybody thinks "it’s no big deal". But in this game of high-stakes nuclear poker, if you communicate your fears and self-imposed limits to your enemy - you increase the chance he'll use them against you. Like General Milley secretly telling the Chinese government that Trump wouldn't be able to use nukes against them? He hasn't been tried for treason, so some people clearly don't think it's that important.

ekianjo 4y ago

> have to think that there are many believable scenarios (e.g., in Ukraine) where "only" one to ten nuclear detonations would be employed. Why do you think it would not escalate? Do you have a crystal ball?

benji-york 4y ago
Why do you think it would escalate? Do you have a crystal ball? I don't know anything about anything, but there have been many regional conflicts over the last 100 years that have remained regional. I don't see how the technology used to fight those regional conflicts changes anything. Perhaps the social connotations of those technologies is significant enough that using some rather than others is "triggering" enough that non-combatants can't help but get involved. <shrug>
- reflexco 4y ago
  Nuclear weapon use in a local conflict would be similar to someone unleashing a new coronavirus to win a local conflict. Due to its polluting non-local effects, it instantly paints a target on whoever uses it. This is also why "anonymous" terrorist nuclear bomb use would be very problematic.
  - benji-york 4y ago
    > polluting non-local effects I agree that these exist. I do not believe that they are as significant as the general public believes. After all, there have been more than 500 nuclear weapons detonated world-wide in the open atmosphere. [0] If these non-local effects are very large, why would we take Russia's threats of using nuclear weapons against a neighbor as credible? [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally
    - objectivetruth 4y ago
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > Why do you think it would escalate? Do you have a crystal ball? Even if the chance is tiny, you don't want to risk a nuclear conflict because there is no going back to the world that we live in after that. I am always dumbfounded at the lack of awareness that having a direct conflict with a nuclear power increases the risk of nuclear war.
3pt14159 4y ago
It could, but it also could not. Try to imagine the different perspectives involved and their pre-drawn plans.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The US has the capability to devastate the Russian army and strategic Russian targets without the use of nukes or other WMD's. That seems the most rational and likely response to tactical nuclear use by Russia on a Ukrainian target. Not guaranteed, of course, but likely. Maintaining the moral high ground has significant value.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > The US has the capability to devastate the Russian army and strategic Russian targets without the use of nukes or other WMD's And what happens next? It's not like there is some kind of enforced rule that WMDs aren't to be used unless the other side doesn't use them. Strategic WMDs deter against a total loss to a foreign power, by any means, not just other WMDs, don't they?
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    There's a good chance that question would be answered by Putin's successor rather than Putin. The successor would have less face to lose in backing down.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > There's a good chance Based on what exactly? Like, how do you imagine a successor would appear while the US devastates Russian army and how would they "have less face to lose" when their military is devastated? It is unlikely that anyone will be replacing Putin in the heat of battle, and its hard to imagine a "less face to loose" situation - it's not like it's for one person to decide and Russian politics doesn't work that way either - there is no tradition to reset politics every few years with a new talking head. No idea how mr "Less face to lose" would be able to do something like that without starting a civil war.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > That seems the most rational and likely response to tactical nuclear use by Russia on a Ukrainian target. What matters is what happens next. Russia razing Europe and the US in nuclear fire if they feel they are cornered have nothing to lose. Good luck with pushing things this far.

mc32 4y ago

I find it amazing that we have people wringing their hands every year that the US dropped ‘tactical’ nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the biggest war ever. And how that is a lesson we should learn and burden we should carry, but in Ukraine, never mind, it’s no big deal. If it happens it happens. We can contain it. Keep up the pressure. If it pops, don’t worry, “We got this!” messaging we’re hearing. Just Wow!

nickpp 4y ago
I doubt anybody thinks "it’s no big deal". But in this game of high-stakes nuclear poker, if you communicate your fears and self-imposed limits to your enemy - you increase the chance he'll use them against you. After all, the MAD strategy did keep us safe during the cold war while giving up their nukes did bring Ukraine an invasion.
- HKH2 4y ago
  > I doubt anybody thinks "it’s no big deal". But in this game of high-stakes nuclear poker, if you communicate your fears and self-imposed limits to your enemy - you increase the chance he'll use them against you. Like General Milley secretly telling the Chinese government that Trump wouldn't be able to use nukes against them? He hasn't been tried for treason, so some people clearly don't think it's that important.