3 ms·

The point of war is still to hurt the enemy into submission. Nuclear weapons do war without the need for young soldiers, but that doesn't mean no one gets hurt.

The point of war is still to hurt the enemy into submission. Nuclear weapons do war without the need for young soldiers, but that doesn't mean no one gets hurt. They just skip the battlefield stage. We're merely replacing nukes with murder drone clouds.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Nukes feel more impersonal and the quick death seems merciful compared to being chased around a tree. But the sheer magnitude of the destruction of nukes still has me preferring murder done clouds to nukes.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazis would have loved this for their "living space" plans.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Nukes are far bigger now and there are cluster warheads which enable carpet nuking which would not leave survivors. They have dial a yield warheads especially designed to reduce bluntness and enable / encourage tactical use. Then there is neutron bombs that are designed to focus on killing the people and leaving the infrastructure. It used to be presumed that any real conflict would start out with nuclear weapons and for now that is unthinkable. I hope it stays that way but there is no divine reason for it to. Just traditions and norms that are easily swept away. I remember a time, not that long ago, when arming drones with weapons was unthinkable. Then we did it and now it’s being done to us. I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. The same way the unthinkable systemic crash of the housing market enabled the very leverage that caused it. The same logic of ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not yet used nukes’ which elides the fact that there is always a first time. And like weaponized drones, once it starts it’s really hard to stop.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. That's kinda the point. The US has been dedicated to strategic arms reduction treaties for decades, with the express intent of limiting a missile-gap mentality from taking over again. In particular, the only real reason the United States can muster for justifying nuclear weapons is retaliatory strikes; there's very little practical use for them besides saber-rattling, because once you press the big red button every single country is going to consider you the escalating party. Both the United States and Russia are replete with tactical standoff strike weaponry that is non-nuclear and well-suited for the kind of conflict they want to fight. Nuking targets in Ukraine would not only be unnecessary, but it would annihilate Putin's cover of territorial aggression and almost certainly qualify as inhumane and disproportionate escalation. NATO would have full casus belli on Russia and no "red line" threats could stop the retaliatory strikes on their silos and airbases. I think both of you have lost the script on what a nuclear strike actually represents, in international realpolitik. Whatever megaton you dial, nukes are a red flag will push every ally and enemy you have to the brink. If you lack popular support on the global stage (like Russia), there's no guarantee you'll survive a second-strike attack long enough to get what you wanted. Putin specifically despises NATO because it guarantees Russia will be crippled in the event they cross the nuclear boundary.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        I think you're thinking of the world as it is today, not as it would be right before a nuclear exchange. I'm thinking of a hypothetical future that is not as unlikely as I would like for it to be. If there is a great power conflict then the presumed loser of that war is likely to go nuclear. We got lucky with the peaceful dissolution of the USSR, we should not expect to get that lucky again. So long as Russia has the advantage in the Ukraine / Russia war I don't see them using nukes for the reasons you mentioned. It feels like to me that the US is teetering on the precipice of an implosion and for now it is in the interests of the adversaries to take a wait and see approach. Realpolitik is the politics of practical circumstances, sure if Russia launches one nuke the blowback would be immense and intolerable, but if Russia and China launch enough nukes to go scorched earth then the remaining countries will be figuring out how to best to survive regardless of prior alliances.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

Nukes feel more impersonal and the quick death seems merciful compared to being chased around a tree. But the sheer magnitude of the destruction of nukes still has me preferring murder done clouds to nukes.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazis would have loved this for their "living space" plans.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Nukes are far bigger now and there are cluster warheads which enable carpet nuking which would not leave survivors. They have dial a yield warheads especially designed to reduce bluntness and enable / encourage tactical use. Then there is neutron bombs that are designed to focus on killing the people and leaving the infrastructure. It used to be presumed that any real conflict would start out with nuclear weapons and for now that is unthinkable. I hope it stays that way but there is no divine reason for it to. Just traditions and norms that are easily swept away. I remember a time, not that long ago, when arming drones with weapons was unthinkable. Then we did it and now it’s being done to us. I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. The same way the unthinkable systemic crash of the housing market enabled the very leverage that caused it. The same logic of ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not yet used nukes’ which elides the fact that there is always a first time. And like weaponized drones, once it starts it’s really hard to stop.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. That's kinda the point. The US has been dedicated to strategic arms reduction treaties for decades, with the express intent of limiting a missile-gap mentality from taking over again. In particular, the only real reason the United States can muster for justifying nuclear weapons is retaliatory strikes; there's very little practical use for them besides saber-rattling, because once you press the big red button every single country is going to consider you the escalating party. Both the United States and Russia are replete with tactical standoff strike weaponry that is non-nuclear and well-suited for the kind of conflict they want to fight. Nuking targets in Ukraine would not only be unnecessary, but it would annihilate Putin's cover of territorial aggression and almost certainly qualify as inhumane and disproportionate escalation. NATO would have full casus belli on Russia and no "red line" threats could stop the retaliatory strikes on their silos and airbases. I think both of you have lost the script on what a nuclear strike actually represents, in international realpolitik. Whatever megaton you dial, nukes are a red flag will push every ally and enemy you have to the brink. If you lack popular support on the global stage (like Russia), there's no guarantee you'll survive a second-strike attack long enough to get what you wanted. Putin specifically despises NATO because it guarantees Russia will be crippled in the event they cross the nuclear boundary.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      I think you're thinking of the world as it is today, not as it would be right before a nuclear exchange. I'm thinking of a hypothetical future that is not as unlikely as I would like for it to be. If there is a great power conflict then the presumed loser of that war is likely to go nuclear. We got lucky with the peaceful dissolution of the USSR, we should not expect to get that lucky again. So long as Russia has the advantage in the Ukraine / Russia war I don't see them using nukes for the reasons you mentioned. It feels like to me that the US is teetering on the precipice of an implosion and for now it is in the interests of the adversaries to take a wait and see approach. Realpolitik is the politics of practical circumstances, sure if Russia launches one nuke the blowback would be immense and intolerable, but if Russia and China launch enough nukes to go scorched earth then the remaining countries will be figuring out how to best to survive regardless of prior alliances.