5 ms·

I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazi

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.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      If we presume that the loser of a great power conflict goes nuclear, they realistically have two options; 1) Go weapons-empty, launching every weapon you have at population centers intended to terrorize the world and induce a nuclear holocaust at the expense of guaranteeing the persecution of your nation for hundreds of years to come. 2) Launch a warning strike, at a tactical non-populated target, and hold the rest of the world in "nuclear blackmail" under the assumption/hope that nobody will depose you before your demands are met. What would Russia realistically choose? Option 1 is unthinkable; there's no reason to "burn them all" unless Moscow perceives hopeless conditions. At that point it's doubtful their chain-of-command would last long enough to get bombers off the ground; they are surrounded by adversaries that are explicitly armed with the capacity to disable them. It would be a last-ditch effort, would only detonate a fraction of the stockpiled warheads, and even those aren't guaranteed to make it. And afterwards, Russia is damned for eternity as a nation. You cannot discuss the possibility of an all-out nuclear attack without also considering the second-strike aftermath it would warrant. Option 2 is realistic, but it relies on the rest of the world playing their game. If Russia is postured well, this could be a scary threat. Right now, they have enough morale that these conditions seem feasible (albeit completely stupid). This can only last so long though, and then you either have to dominate the world or lead a de-escalation process that stops people from wanting to stab you in the back. Russia knows they cannot de-escalate, and they lack the power to invade the rest of the world (let alone Ukraine at this rate). A tactical nuclear deployment would just guarantee firmer support of Ukraine. So again, you really have to ask yourself; what does Russia gain? An Option 1 scorched-earth scenario guarantees their annihilation as a state and military power. Option 2 gives them a brief window of opportunity to make a statement, and then forces them to stand-down to preserve their standing as a non-rogue power. Neither of these are opportunities, so much as they are tradeoffs that end in misery for Russia and their dreams of expansionism. China knows this too; they wouldn't launch their nukes at Russia's behest because unlike Russia they aspire to be seen as a legitimate nuclear superpower. China's nuclear weapons serve a shockingly similar purpose as the United States'. Russia would like for you to imagine a Tu-160 flying over your house; they spend a lot of money getting people to put that image in your head. That's their whole trick, though. The secret to carrying the proverbial "big stick" is that you have to speak quietly enough for people to think you're responsible with it. Otherwise you're seen as a brute with a club.

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.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    If we presume that the loser of a great power conflict goes nuclear, they realistically have two options; 1) Go weapons-empty, launching every weapon you have at population centers intended to terrorize the world and induce a nuclear holocaust at the expense of guaranteeing the persecution of your nation for hundreds of years to come. 2) Launch a warning strike, at a tactical non-populated target, and hold the rest of the world in "nuclear blackmail" under the assumption/hope that nobody will depose you before your demands are met. What would Russia realistically choose? Option 1 is unthinkable; there's no reason to "burn them all" unless Moscow perceives hopeless conditions. At that point it's doubtful their chain-of-command would last long enough to get bombers off the ground; they are surrounded by adversaries that are explicitly armed with the capacity to disable them. It would be a last-ditch effort, would only detonate a fraction of the stockpiled warheads, and even those aren't guaranteed to make it. And afterwards, Russia is damned for eternity as a nation. You cannot discuss the possibility of an all-out nuclear attack without also considering the second-strike aftermath it would warrant. Option 2 is realistic, but it relies on the rest of the world playing their game. If Russia is postured well, this could be a scary threat. Right now, they have enough morale that these conditions seem feasible (albeit completely stupid). This can only last so long though, and then you either have to dominate the world or lead a de-escalation process that stops people from wanting to stab you in the back. Russia knows they cannot de-escalate, and they lack the power to invade the rest of the world (let alone Ukraine at this rate). A tactical nuclear deployment would just guarantee firmer support of Ukraine. So again, you really have to ask yourself; what does Russia gain? An Option 1 scorched-earth scenario guarantees their annihilation as a state and military power. Option 2 gives them a brief window of opportunity to make a statement, and then forces them to stand-down to preserve their standing as a non-rogue power. Neither of these are opportunities, so much as they are tradeoffs that end in misery for Russia and their dreams of expansionism. China knows this too; they wouldn't launch their nukes at Russia's behest because unlike Russia they aspire to be seen as a legitimate nuclear superpower. China's nuclear weapons serve a shockingly similar purpose as the United States'. Russia would like for you to imagine a Tu-160 flying over your house; they spend a lot of money getting people to put that image in your head. That's their whole trick, though. The secret to carrying the proverbial "big stick" is that you have to speak quietly enough for people to think you're responsible with it. Otherwise you're seen as a brute with a club.