6 ms·

> it would end in Iraq-style massacre of their army More like with Hiroshima-style massacre of European cities.

ajuc 2y ago
You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
- swores 2y ago
  But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
  - ajuc 2y ago
    There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Who starts a war is really a matter of perspective though. And often the answer, especially during the war, is that the other side started it and you had no choice. Russia judtifies the Ukraine exactly the same way. And honestly it's really impossible to dispute, if Russia believed that Ukraine and/or NATO was posing a fundamental risk to Russian sovereignty or the Russian people, was their invasion offensive or defensive? I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
      - ajuc 2y ago
        Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it. > I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong. This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
        _heimdall 2y ago
        > Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? You seem way more certain than me that NATO countries have the means and will to destroy Russia in short order. Maybe you're right, but I expect that would be a much more difficult and deadly war than Russia simply ceasin to exist. > This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it). Even a bar fight isn't so black and white that you can easily say who started and when. Sure, if you want to consider recognizing that the events leading to a war are complex as relitivism then I'd argue that claiming it's easy to see Russia started this war and there are no mitigating factors muddying that water is absolutism. Boiling complex situations down to simple, binary facts is a great way to justify doing whatever it is you want to do. The balance is in the middle. I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the agressor here, and I'm not arguing that they weren't the aggressor in 2008 or 2014 either. I am arguing, though, that one side can see unwarranted agression while the other side honestly believes they are responding to a threat that already existed.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though? Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use. NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    The alternative is a new nuclear arms race. Look at it from the POV of neighbors of China and Russia if UN and NATO backs down from nuclear blackmail. In that world security guarantees mean nothing. If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. The only chance to survive is to build your own nukes. Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then. The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      >If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria? >The problem with appeasement Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      If we're leaning into the tragedy of the commons problem, sure we're all screwed no matter what. We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.

ajuc 2y ago

You have 2 important cities in Russia. Moscow and Piter. You bomb that and Russia's over. There's more than that in Germany alone, and then you have 20 other countries in EU. Russia is in an uniquely bad position to start a nuclear war.

protomolecule 2y ago
Britain and France have only 8 SSBNs of which only several are on patrol at any given time. Track them, make them the first target and the snakes are defanged. The US will not risk getting involved at this point.
- ajuc 2y ago
  France alone has 100s of planes capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Looking at russian success rate in Ukraine at shooting down these - 2 will suffice :)
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    Sure, those stocks[0] are a target for the first strike too. [0] https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-facilities.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/french-faci...
swores 2y ago
But assuming Russia doesn't keep all of their nukes in those two cities, destroying them may not be enough to prevent many bombs launching towards far more than 2 European cities? If you're on the receiving end of a nuke it won't be of much solace to have a minute of thinking "hah at least Russia is fucked".
- ajuc 2y ago
  There's probably 500 more important cities to bomb in Europe before they get to my city. Which is 9th biggest in Poland, but still. The point is that Russia can't hope to win in either conventional or nuclear war. So they won't start it. It really is that simple. BTW the only reason they started war in Ukraine is that they thought they will win easily. They had an article prepared that praised the army for 3-day victory. It accidentally went live early in the war :) They weren't alone in that miscalculation - NATO thought that too. Nobody serious thinks Russia can win a war against NATO. Even Russia does not pretend that. Instead they pretend to be crazy. But they are rational, just evil.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Who starts a war is really a matter of perspective though. And often the answer, especially during the war, is that the other side started it and you had no choice. Russia judtifies the Ukraine exactly the same way. And honestly it's really impossible to dispute, if Russia believed that Ukraine and/or NATO was posing a fundamental risk to Russian sovereignty or the Russian people, was their invasion offensive or defensive? I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it. > I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong. This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        > Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? You seem way more certain than me that NATO countries have the means and will to destroy Russia in short order. Maybe you're right, but I expect that would be a much more difficult and deadly war than Russia simply ceasin to exist. > This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it). Even a bar fight isn't so black and white that you can easily say who started and when. Sure, if you want to consider recognizing that the events leading to a war are complex as relitivism then I'd argue that claiming it's easy to see Russia started this war and there are no mitigating factors muddying that water is absolutism. Boiling complex situations down to simple, binary facts is a great way to justify doing whatever it is you want to do. The balance is in the middle. I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the agressor here, and I'm not arguing that they weren't the aggressor in 2008 or 2014 either. I am arguing, though, that one side can see unwarranted agression while the other side honestly believes they are responding to a threat that already existed.
_heimdall 2y ago
Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though? Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use. NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
- ajuc 2y ago
  The alternative is a new nuclear arms race. Look at it from the POV of neighbors of China and Russia if UN and NATO backs down from nuclear blackmail. In that world security guarantees mean nothing. If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. The only chance to survive is to build your own nukes. Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then. The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    >If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria? >The problem with appeasement Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    If we're leaning into the tragedy of the commons problem, sure we're all screwed no matter what. We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.