4 ms·

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 un

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
  My concern isn't from Russian propaganda. Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems. People were ready to believe that a sufficient missile defence would mean that we could brush off a nuclear exchange and because of that the west could risk more aggressive posturing. I see it as dangerous for us to believe our own propaganda. Russia is in effect a vassal state of China so really we should be talking about what China will do. So from Chinas perspective they have to worry about how the US will behave when they’re forced to relinquishing global dominance. I'm less worried about Russia going nuclear than I am worried about the US going nuclear. Say for example if China sinks a few of US's carriers day one of a conflict over Taiwan with a swarm of drones. Could they bank on the US not going nuclear, if not then Option 1 is no longer unthinkable it is the only option.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems. We have those at all? Ones that would affect nukes? I don't think the idea of nuclear missle defense was part of the above scenario or is part of the average person's expectations.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      At the time the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) was expected to work, the plan was to scale that up. The idea is that some sites would be defended even in a saturation attack where it would be unlikely that Russia would devote enough ICBMs to a single target. There have been attempts to restart it with more lasers. Even now it’s seen as a matter of time - believing the hype from Lockheed and Raytheon. I hope it is only hype but maybe enough lasers could work. I would hate to find out it doesn’t work the hard way. I could tell back then (>20 years ago) that cheap drones were the future but doing a bad job on expensive things provided job security so no one was interested in doing a good job on cheap things. I quickly switched career to big tech. Some decision makers in the US are oddly ok with getting nuked so long as they can still call it a win, one single American and no Russians. Suburban sprawl was encouraged as diffusion was seen as a survival strategy. Then you have Baptists that see nuclear holocaust as an essential part of the rapture so they can go to heaven without dying and be with their resurrected relatives. A really dangerous belief held by plenty of people in the military. I’m of the view that it’s only a matter of time before space is militarized, especially if Trump gets elected again. And if we do that then Russia and China will want to do that as well. I am assuming their base on the moon plans are a cover for launch capacity investments to get nukes into space. People in the military think about the ‘unthinkable’ all of the time. I think the current framing of nuclear exchange as unthinkable is only done as part of the wests propaganda to allow the west to push red lines harder than what would be otherwise permitted. As per realpolitik, nation states are immensely paranoid and often think if we don’t do X then Y will and with that can justify doing some truly awful things. Dr Strangelove is less of an over the top satire and more of an oddly accurate portrayal. Even the ability for a first strike nuclear attack by a military commander without presidential approval was accurate despite being classified at the time, I wonder if someone leaked the idea to Kubrick as a round about attempt to show the world how nuts it is in an effort to get popular pressure to apply political pressure to fix it. Have they fixed it, I don’t know but either way they would tell us they have and keep the truth classified.

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
My concern isn't from Russian propaganda. Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems. People were ready to believe that a sufficient missile defence would mean that we could brush off a nuclear exchange and because of that the west could risk more aggressive posturing. I see it as dangerous for us to believe our own propaganda. Russia is in effect a vassal state of China so really we should be talking about what China will do. So from Chinas perspective they have to worry about how the US will behave when they’re forced to relinquishing global dominance. I'm less worried about Russia going nuclear than I am worried about the US going nuclear. Say for example if China sinks a few of US's carriers day one of a conflict over Taiwan with a swarm of drones. Could they bank on the US not going nuclear, if not then Option 1 is no longer unthinkable it is the only option.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems. We have those at all? Ones that would affect nukes? I don't think the idea of nuclear missle defense was part of the above scenario or is part of the average person's expectations.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    At the time the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) was expected to work, the plan was to scale that up. The idea is that some sites would be defended even in a saturation attack where it would be unlikely that Russia would devote enough ICBMs to a single target. There have been attempts to restart it with more lasers. Even now it’s seen as a matter of time - believing the hype from Lockheed and Raytheon. I hope it is only hype but maybe enough lasers could work. I would hate to find out it doesn’t work the hard way. I could tell back then (>20 years ago) that cheap drones were the future but doing a bad job on expensive things provided job security so no one was interested in doing a good job on cheap things. I quickly switched career to big tech. Some decision makers in the US are oddly ok with getting nuked so long as they can still call it a win, one single American and no Russians. Suburban sprawl was encouraged as diffusion was seen as a survival strategy. Then you have Baptists that see nuclear holocaust as an essential part of the rapture so they can go to heaven without dying and be with their resurrected relatives. A really dangerous belief held by plenty of people in the military. I’m of the view that it’s only a matter of time before space is militarized, especially if Trump gets elected again. And if we do that then Russia and China will want to do that as well. I am assuming their base on the moon plans are a cover for launch capacity investments to get nukes into space. People in the military think about the ‘unthinkable’ all of the time. I think the current framing of nuclear exchange as unthinkable is only done as part of the wests propaganda to allow the west to push red lines harder than what would be otherwise permitted. As per realpolitik, nation states are immensely paranoid and often think if we don’t do X then Y will and with that can justify doing some truly awful things. Dr Strangelove is less of an over the top satire and more of an oddly accurate portrayal. Even the ability for a first strike nuclear attack by a military commander without presidential approval was accurate despite being classified at the time, I wonder if someone leaked the idea to Kubrick as a round about attempt to show the world how nuts it is in an effort to get popular pressure to apply political pressure to fix it. Have they fixed it, I don’t know but either way they would tell us they have and keep the truth classified.