5 ms·

If the US is ruled by a government that will start a war with a nuclear power for any reason other than an attack against it, we need to do everything possible

by vkou 4y ago

If the US is ruled by a government that will start a war with a nuclear power for any reason other than an attack against it, we need to do everything possible to replace that government. Because doing that is insane, and we cannot let madmen in charge of a nuclear football. Taiwan isn't worth ending the world over.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> doing that is insane, and we cannot let madmen in charge of a nuclear football Zero nuclear is failed policy. It’s lead to war in Ukraine and encourages appeasement with China. We need more flexible doctrine. I’m not sure what it is, but it can’t be no war at all ever with a belligerent nuclear power at all costs. (Conventional only, no sinking capital ships and no strikes on core territory or any civilians would strike me as reasonable, but that also plays to American strengths.)
- sempron64 4y ago
  It’s hard to say it’s a failed policy when we have no evidence against the null hypothesis, which is global nuclear war.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > against the null hypothesis, which is global nuclear war That’s not the null. Null would be engagement as usual. Nuclear war can occur in both the null and zero nuclear policy states.
nradov 4y ago
Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs. If Xi succeeds in conquering Taiwan then that would be just the first of many targets. From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.
- vkou 4y ago
  > Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs. If at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not. It's not worth it. It's not remotely worth it, and it's insane (In the colloquial, 'madman with his finger on the button' way) to consider it. Burning down the village does not save the village. > From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works. That's a bait and switch. The only reason nuclear weapons can be tolerated is because they prevent war between empires. When your doctrine explicitly expects them to fail to do that, it puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist. You can draw red lines that can't be crossed like 'an attack against our territory will be responded to dispropritionately', but you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world. Nobody will actually believe you when you do.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > if at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not Nobody is saying we should nuke China if they invade Taiwan. Just that our risk tolerance to Beijing escalating conventional engagement to all-out nuclear war cannot be zero. We must be ready to sink Chinese ships and potentially hit port and missile facilities with conventional arms. Refusing to do so is the sort of appeasement that virtually guarantees a future, far deadlier conflict. That engagement risks nuclear escalation is an important consideration, but not a decisive one. > puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist We agree. This has been a lie for some time. Nukes are terrible. Between rationale regimes, they seem to reduce large-scale conflict. With dictators, the calculus shifts. Were getting rid of them an option, I’d take it. Presently, the world is going in the opposite direction, with the normalisation of tactical nukes a likelihood in our lifetimes. > you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world Nobody has done that. Taiwan has de facto American security guarantees. If China invades Mongnolia the world will be angry, but nobody will go to war.
- ashwagary 4y ago

by vkou 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> doing that is insane, and we cannot let madmen in charge of a nuclear football Zero nuclear is failed policy. It’s lead to war in Ukraine and encourages appeasement with China. We need more flexible doctrine. I’m not sure what it is, but it can’t be no war at all ever with a belligerent nuclear power at all costs. (Conventional only, no sinking capital ships and no strikes on core territory or any civilians would strike me as reasonable, but that also plays to American strengths.)

sempron64 4y ago
It’s hard to say it’s a failed policy when we have no evidence against the null hypothesis, which is global nuclear war.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > against the null hypothesis, which is global nuclear war That’s not the null. Null would be engagement as usual. Nuclear war can occur in both the null and zero nuclear policy states.

nradov 4y ago

Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs. If Xi succeeds in conquering Taiwan then that would be just the first of many targets. From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.

vkou 4y ago
> Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs. If at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not. It's not worth it. It's not remotely worth it, and it's insane (In the colloquial, 'madman with his finger on the button' way) to consider it. Burning down the village does not save the village. > From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works. That's a bait and switch. The only reason nuclear weapons can be tolerated is because they prevent war between empires. When your doctrine explicitly expects them to fail to do that, it puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist. You can draw red lines that can't be crossed like 'an attack against our territory will be responded to dispropritionately', but you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world. Nobody will actually believe you when you do.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > if at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not Nobody is saying we should nuke China if they invade Taiwan. Just that our risk tolerance to Beijing escalating conventional engagement to all-out nuclear war cannot be zero. We must be ready to sink Chinese ships and potentially hit port and missile facilities with conventional arms. Refusing to do so is the sort of appeasement that virtually guarantees a future, far deadlier conflict. That engagement risks nuclear escalation is an important consideration, but not a decisive one. > puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist We agree. This has been a lie for some time. Nukes are terrible. Between rationale regimes, they seem to reduce large-scale conflict. With dictators, the calculus shifts. Were getting rid of them an option, I’d take it. Presently, the world is going in the opposite direction, with the normalisation of tactical nukes a likelihood in our lifetimes. > you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world Nobody has done that. Taiwan has de facto American security guarantees. If China invades Mongnolia the world will be angry, but nobody will go to war.
ashwagary 4y ago