5 ms·
It doesn't seem to take into account British and French nuclear arsenals (although they're not commensurable to US and Russian ones). Strikes on UK and French t
by Bayart 4y ago
It doesn't seem to take into account British and French nuclear arsenals (although they're not commensurable to US and Russian ones). Strikes on UK and French territory (which are shown in this simulation), not even mentioning NATO commitments, would incite a response.
- alexvoda 4y agoAlso look at the other nuclear powers just sitting there dooing nothing. This in a early cold war era US vs USSR Armageddon scenario, not a 202x scenario. Plausible scenarios today are: - Russia using a nuke in Ukraine and earning the hate of every single country in the world. China and India try to remain neutral but they would almost certainly drop support for Russia if they break the nuclear taboo. This would not even require a nuclear response to solve. - Kim doing something stupid.
- philjohn 4y agoOr tensions rising between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers.
- jfoster 4y agoHas there even been a direct conventional war between two nuclear powers before? I expect that nuclear weapons are a deterrent of any war when both sides have them. The problem with disarmament seems to be that imbalances arise, and the problem with armament seems to be that if hundreds of countries have them, there's a high probability of one of them doing something stupid/crazy/suicidal.
- messe 4y agoYes, the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 and the Kargil war between India and Pakistan in 1999.
- systemvoltage 4y agoThat was an interesting conflict from the stand point of nuclear restrain. Territories were occupied, hundreds of casualties, open fire and fighter jets; yet no nuclear threats. I haven't read up on it but just looking at the outcome of the war.
- alexvoda 4y agoYes, that is another hotspot, but tensions between them have risen and fallen and neither party appears to be willing to commit to the end of the world. They are in an equilibrium of MAD.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrcheesebreeze 4y agoukraine wouldn't be enough to push nato to even regular war let alone a nuclear response. If putin keeps the radiation from spilling into nato territory its not enough to start ww3. Despite cnn's lies, nato doesn't actually care much for ukraine, they just see this as a way to do damage indirectly to an enemy they want to hurt. Nato isn't interested in committing suicide, afterall nuclear war benefits noone. Honestly I see the ukraine situation either ending with a discussion that cedes at least the 2 "republics" on the border, or small yield nukes being used on small targets to scare ukraine to the negotiation table. The reality is russia can last enough in war but ukraine is pretty tough and has nearly the same if not even more men than russia fielded. they will almost certainly negotiate.
- alexvoda 4y agoI will refrain from making such detailed predictions but we both agree NATO will most probably NOT use nuclear weapons to retaliate if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine. I think the avenues for retaliation from the world are far more diverse but retaliation of some kind is almost certain.
- amalter 4y agoI disagree. I believe the intentions would start as a non-nuclear response, but would rapidly spill out of control into a full send of all weapons. This is the reality of the "Assured Destruction" of MAD. If you can take out your enemies ability to respond you can "win". With a tactical nuke in play and Rus-vs-US force engagement moves us to DEFCON 1. The name of that level is "COCKED PISTOL". A cocked pistol is something to handle gently, any wrong nudge could set it off. Then in the background you have air to air engagements over the Black Sea - blockades of Kaliningrad, SSN's chasing SSBN's. Dozens of Cuban Missile Crisis type situations all playing out in parallel. One bad call by one local commander and a head of state is given 6 minutes to figure out if this is a first strike. Once the line is crossed almost all of us die. It might take hours, days or weeks - but it will be an near inevitable conclusion.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> If putin keeps the radiation from spilling into nato territory That is virtually impossible. You can count on at least some detectable level of radioactive fallout reaching a NATO country. That could be enough to trigger Article 5 IF the political leaders of NATO willed it. To really simulate this sort of scenario properly, you need political wargaming (e.g. matrix games.) And the best way to do that is with politicians themselves, or at the very least members of their staff, participating in the wargames. This isn't the sort of thing you can simulate properly with computers or college students.
- IAmGraydon 4y agoRussia using a nuke in Ukraine doesn’t even make any sense. What would it accomplish? The Ukrainian forces are too scattered for this to be effective. Would it scare the West into backing down? It would certainly scare a lot of people, but Putin knows that the West will not be scared into submission. If it’s done as a scare tactic, then it’s terrorism, and negotiating with terrorists is off the table. The only way I can see Russia going nuclear is if the West becomes directly involved in the conflict, Putin sees it as the existential end of Russia, and decides to take the murder-suicide route. Let’s hope it never gets to that point.
- andrewflnr 4y agoI don't think he does know this. The last couple decades of Russian relations have consisted of the West being scared into submission. It wasn't until (a) Russia invaded Ukraine and frankly (b) Ukraine bloodied Russia's nose that everyone else woke up to the fact that Russia was a real threat that had to be and could be opposed.