3 ms·

I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he

by tpmx 3y ago

I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he did today with the Wagner Group leadership.

mulmen 3y ago
> I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? Or the leaders of all other nuclear armed nations that may retaliate against Russia's "rational" actions? > Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he did today with the Wagner Group leadership. If your days are numbered the consequences don't apply. In that case why not seek vengeance? Killing rivals is basically a hobby for Putin.
- tpmx 3y ago
  > How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? That's probably our largest worst-case risk.
- vkou 3y ago
  > How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? How do you know the next leader of the US will be? It's not like people get elected to the position, or appoint their subordinates based on their rationality. That's the beauty of sovereign countries with enough nuclear weapons to kill the world, you don't. Maybe we should look into this bilateral arms reduction thing.
  - tpmx 3y ago
    Bilateral, you say? SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute): Countries with an increase in stockpiled nuclear warheads from Jan 2022 to Jan 2023: China: +60 Russia: +12 Pakistan: +5 North Korea: +5 India: +4 https://www.statista.com/chart/30173/the-countries-expanding-their-nuclear-arsenal/ https://www.statista.com/chart/30173/the-countries-expanding...
    - vkou 3y ago
      The UK, France, China, and Israel are more than an order of magnitude under the US and Russia in their nuclear armament, and Pakistan, India, and NK are another order below them.
      - gizajob 3y ago
        There's also the number actually in use - the UK has four nuclear submarines, one of which is always at sea, so can only ever really launch 1/4 of it's armament. The rest will be sitting somewhere when the big day comes, never to be used.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      This would be a more interesting statistic with the full stockpile amount. Now it seems misleading, as if the US and Russia don’t have vastly more nukes than the others.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        With MAD does it matter? Isn’t the idea that if anyone launches nukes everyone launches nukes?
        vkou 3y ago
        There's MAD and there's MAD. Nobody is going to invade NK, because even a few nukes make it a horrible idea, but I also don't consider NK launching it's weapons to be a fundamental, serious threat to global civilization.
        waffleiron 3y ago
        We don't truly have MAD with someone who has a small amount of nuclear weapons. Specifically one of the reasons the US dropped out of the ABM treaty was because they argued that they should be able to defend against countries with a small amount of nuclear weapons. It's also unlikely that everyone else launches their nukes during MAD, it's a doctrine that specifically applies to an attacker and a defender.
duxup 3y ago
I don’t know if he is. I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  Deterrence works broadly across a population. If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families. I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby status. My point is just that the concept of deterrence is ultimately based on the self-interest of the many many people who make up a nation and its military forces. Not just a few leaders.
  - duxup 3y ago
    Military personnel aren't trained to take time to consider their self-interest. MAD also only works if your side is willing to push the button.
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
      People don’t usually need training to want to protect their friends and family. If you think the military successfully trains that out of people, you’re not very familiar with the military. Defending friends and family is one of strongest motivations for conformance to military discipline. MAD works because no one wants to be the first to push the button. And as long as no one pushes it first, no one needs to push it second either.
  - rurp 3y ago
    A soldier disobeying a direct order from a Russian dictator has a pretty grim life expectancy. Soldiers generally have a very limited and distorted view of whatever broader situation they are in, and any first strike would likely be couched in a lot of optimism and/or desperation. An officer saying "You need to launch this missile immediately to save your homeland, and if you don't do it you'll be shot in the head as a traitor", is not a trivial thing to say no to.
dudul 3y ago
I dont think Putin is insane either, but megalomans can easily start thinking "after me the deluge".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rurp 3y ago
He might be sane now, but will he always be? How about each of the next 100 leaders? The terrifying thing is that it only takes one crazy/confused/suicidal leader to obliterate humanity. The risk in any given year is usually low, but everyone knows how small chances compound over time.

by tpmx 3y ago

mulmen 3y ago

> I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? Or the leaders of all other nuclear armed nations that may retaliate against Russia's "rational" actions? > Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he did today with the Wagner Group leadership. If your days are numbered the consequences don't apply. In that case why not seek vengeance? Killing rivals is basically a hobby for Putin.

tpmx 3y ago
> How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? That's probably our largest worst-case risk.
vkou 3y ago
> How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? How do you know the next leader of the US will be? It's not like people get elected to the position, or appoint their subordinates based on their rationality. That's the beauty of sovereign countries with enough nuclear weapons to kill the world, you don't. Maybe we should look into this bilateral arms reduction thing.
- tpmx 3y ago
  Bilateral, you say? SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute): Countries with an increase in stockpiled nuclear warheads from Jan 2022 to Jan 2023: China: +60 Russia: +12 Pakistan: +5 North Korea: +5 India: +4 https://www.statista.com/chart/30173/the-countries-expanding-their-nuclear-arsenal/ https://www.statista.com/chart/30173/the-countries-expanding...
  - vkou 3y ago
    The UK, France, China, and Israel are more than an order of magnitude under the US and Russia in their nuclear armament, and Pakistan, India, and NK are another order below them.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      There's also the number actually in use - the UK has four nuclear submarines, one of which is always at sea, so can only ever really launch 1/4 of it's armament. The rest will be sitting somewhere when the big day comes, never to be used.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - waffleiron 3y ago
    This would be a more interesting statistic with the full stockpile amount. Now it seems misleading, as if the US and Russia don’t have vastly more nukes than the others.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      With MAD does it matter? Isn’t the idea that if anyone launches nukes everyone launches nukes?
      - vkou 3y ago
        There's MAD and there's MAD. Nobody is going to invade NK, because even a few nukes make it a horrible idea, but I also don't consider NK launching it's weapons to be a fundamental, serious threat to global civilization.
      - waffleiron 3y ago
        We don't truly have MAD with someone who has a small amount of nuclear weapons. Specifically one of the reasons the US dropped out of the ABM treaty was because they argued that they should be able to defend against countries with a small amount of nuclear weapons. It's also unlikely that everyone else launches their nukes during MAD, it's a doctrine that specifically applies to an attacker and a defender.

duxup 3y ago

I don’t know if he is. I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.

snowwrestler 3y ago
Deterrence works broadly across a population. If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families. I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby status. My point is just that the concept of deterrence is ultimately based on the self-interest of the many many people who make up a nation and its military forces. Not just a few leaders.
- duxup 3y ago
  Military personnel aren't trained to take time to consider their self-interest. MAD also only works if your side is willing to push the button.
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    People don’t usually need training to want to protect their friends and family. If you think the military successfully trains that out of people, you’re not very familiar with the military. Defending friends and family is one of strongest motivations for conformance to military discipline. MAD works because no one wants to be the first to push the button. And as long as no one pushes it first, no one needs to push it second either.
- rurp 3y ago
  A soldier disobeying a direct order from a Russian dictator has a pretty grim life expectancy. Soldiers generally have a very limited and distorted view of whatever broader situation they are in, and any first strike would likely be couched in a lot of optimism and/or desperation. An officer saying "You need to launch this missile immediately to save your homeland, and if you don't do it you'll be shot in the head as a traitor", is not a trivial thing to say no to.

dudul 3y ago

I dont think Putin is insane either, but megalomans can easily start thinking "after me the deluge".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rurp 3y ago

He might be sane now, but will he always be? How about each of the next 100 leaders? The terrifying thing is that it only takes one crazy/confused/suicidal leader to obliterate humanity. The risk in any given year is usually low, but everyone knows how small chances compound over time.