4 ms·

While there are many that argue against this point and I am sympathetic to them, Mutually Assured Destruction is a very powerful deterrent. One of the reasons

While there are many that argue against this point and I am sympathetic to them, Mutually Assured Destruction is a very powerful deterrent. One of the reasons why many treaties came a long after WW2 was because for the first time ever, we had weapons on a scale that could truly cause civilization ending events. There is talk about strategic strike capabilities and from the little bits that trickle out from within, it is considered a potential path forward. But it is a path forward that is both political and literal suicide. A scenario played out in the book 'Decline and Fall: The End of Empire and the Future of Democracy in 21st Century America' by John Michael Greer makes a decent point. Say the US decides to strategically strike an opponent. They manage to take out 199 of 200 potential retaliatory strikes - a great success in terms of the ratio. But that one missile that gets through detonates over San Fransisco becoming the single most deadly event in US history. It just isn't seen as a viable path forward. Luckily those in power are there because of those below them, you cannot be too loose of a cannon at the top but even that doesn't put ones mind at ease as you just do not know on what could happen. Maybe the lunatics to get control of it all. Strange things can happen.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
> you cannot be too loose of a cannon at the top And with Putin on one side and possibly (hopefully not) Trump on the other, that makes two loose cannons. Comforting thought.
- samsin 2y ago
  Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Strong disagree. Trump has proven to be unreliable and unpredictable. He’s drunk on his own real or perceived power like a typical cult leader, and cannot be relied on to act rationally. Not unlike Putin.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small. What we can say is neither Russia nor America wants MAD. So the way an exchange would happen would be due to a fuckup. And not any old fuckup, e.g. Ukraine hit Moscow with an American missile or whatever. But a nuclear fuckup, e.g. Moscow thinks it's detected multiple missile launches and can't get the President on the phone.
    - baybal2 2y ago
      [dead]
    - mu53 2y ago
      Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Kamala would likely continue the policy of continuous, slow escalation. The most recent escalation is Ukraine shooting long range weapon into Russia, what's next? Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024
      - Krssst 2y ago
        > Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control would probably reduce the risk of MAD since the crazy guy got all his wishes. I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.
        CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control This is irrational fearmongering. Let's assume NATO falls apart and it's every country for itself. It will take years for Russia to reconstitute its combat power to sufficient degree to conduct another large-scale mechanized invasion of anything bigger than the Baltic states. Speaking of the Baltics, I'm really not concerned about them, combined pop of ~6 million and GDP of ~$650B...they are roughly the size and impact of Hong Kong, and should not drive policy-making that risks continents of hundreds of millions when the West didn't raise a finger to protect HK from the PRC's authoritarian crackdown. But let's look at the big nation-states that could be in Russia's sights: they aren't sitting still and are ALSO re-arming with everything from US hardware to South Korean tanks and artillery[0]. Now consider demographics. Poland and Romania have a combined population of ~60 million. Their capital cities have metro areas of ~2 million+, much like Kyiv and Kharkhiv, which Russia hasn't been able to take by force of arms. How would Russia control them if they resisted? What sort of sustained insurgency would the populations (who as I understand it are overwhelmingly anti-Russian) be capable of inflicting? What sort of cost-benefit analysis do you really think Putin is doing that would result in some dystopian return to Russian domination of Eastern Europe? In other words, what does he, and perhaps more importantly, the rest of Russia's siloviki, stand to gain that makes waging an open war and/or counter-insurgency against ~60 million Poles and Romanians worthwhile? If you think Putin is just trying to paint the map like a Hearts of Iron player.....that perspective is simply not in touch with reality. > I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe. You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe, when he had Europe's most important economy in his back pocket: 2000-20013. [1] Russia was printing money selling petrochemicals to German industry. The oligarchs were fat, happy, and spent a bunch of their cash buying European vacation homes and sports teams. The biggest person rocking the boat was Georgia's Mikhael Sakhashvili[2], who Putin simply slapped down as a warning to the US, then went back to printing money (assisted by greasing the wheels with Gerhard Schroder's help)[3]. Second-biggest person rocking the boat was George Bush's administration, which refused to ratify the START II treaty[4], then unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty[5], then insisted on putting ABMs in Russia's near-abroad[6]. And yet....life in Europe got along just fine. [0] https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/05/poland-south-korea-defense-partnership-grows-with-weapons-procurements/ https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/05/poland-south-korea-defens... [1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vladimir-putin-is-forbes-most-powerful-person-in-the-world/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vladimir-putin-is-forbes-... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger... [4] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-united-states-america-and-union-soviet-socialist-republics-strategic-offensive-reductions-start-ii/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr... [5] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-limitation-anti-ballistic-missile-systems-abm-treaty/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr... [6] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm-shield-in-europe-and-russias-response-ari/ https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...
defrost 2y ago
> you cannot be too loose of a cannon at the top Meanwhile, in reality: “Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war?” What’s amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards. The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. It is about enabling the President’s power, not checking or restricting him. In a three part detailed longform: The President and the Bomb (2016) https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and... Part II https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/12/23/the-president-and-the-bomb-redux/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/12/23/the-president-and... Part III https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-iii/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-ii...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to This may be necessary to ensure the deterrent is credible. But for first strike use, authorisation should require at the very least Congressional approval. (Not the whole Congress, obviously, but maybe the Senate Select and House Permanent Select Committees.) Ideally, all three branches of government.
  - defrost 2y ago
    " should " Ah, should - imagine a world in which "should" carried sway. Meanwhile: Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-72 - Nuclear Operations (2020) POSITIVE CONTROL The President may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an execute order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control of the weapons. Page 21 of 29: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Doctrine-Publications/AFDP-3-72-Nuclear-Ops/ https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Doctrine-Publications/AFDP-3-72-... For anybody in the chain that might question that, or want Congressional approval consider the fate of Harold Hering, the Major who was kicked out of the Air Force for asking a “dangerous question” while training to be a Missile Launch Officer at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Hering had asked, in essence, how could he, in his Minuteman missile bunker, know that an order to launch he received from the President had been a legal, considered, and sane one? The answer is, you don't, you just jump as high as you can. ( even if the guy telling you to jump is also telling you they're eating cats and dogs in Ohio )

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> you cannot be too loose of a cannon at the top And with Putin on one side and possibly (hopefully not) Trump on the other, that makes two loose cannons. Comforting thought.

samsin 2y ago
Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Strong disagree. Trump has proven to be unreliable and unpredictable. He’s drunk on his own real or perceived power like a typical cult leader, and cannot be relied on to act rationally. Not unlike Putin.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small. What we can say is neither Russia nor America wants MAD. So the way an exchange would happen would be due to a fuckup. And not any old fuckup, e.g. Ukraine hit Moscow with an American missile or whatever. But a nuclear fuckup, e.g. Moscow thinks it's detected multiple missile launches and can't get the President on the phone.
  - baybal2 2y ago
    [dead]
  - mu53 2y ago
    Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Kamala would likely continue the policy of continuous, slow escalation. The most recent escalation is Ukraine shooting long range weapon into Russia, what's next? Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024
    - Krssst 2y ago
      > Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control would probably reduce the risk of MAD since the crazy guy got all his wishes. I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.
      - CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control This is irrational fearmongering. Let's assume NATO falls apart and it's every country for itself. It will take years for Russia to reconstitute its combat power to sufficient degree to conduct another large-scale mechanized invasion of anything bigger than the Baltic states. Speaking of the Baltics, I'm really not concerned about them, combined pop of ~6 million and GDP of ~$650B...they are roughly the size and impact of Hong Kong, and should not drive policy-making that risks continents of hundreds of millions when the West didn't raise a finger to protect HK from the PRC's authoritarian crackdown. But let's look at the big nation-states that could be in Russia's sights: they aren't sitting still and are ALSO re-arming with everything from US hardware to South Korean tanks and artillery[0]. Now consider demographics. Poland and Romania have a combined population of ~60 million. Their capital cities have metro areas of ~2 million+, much like Kyiv and Kharkhiv, which Russia hasn't been able to take by force of arms. How would Russia control them if they resisted? What sort of sustained insurgency would the populations (who as I understand it are overwhelmingly anti-Russian) be capable of inflicting? What sort of cost-benefit analysis do you really think Putin is doing that would result in some dystopian return to Russian domination of Eastern Europe? In other words, what does he, and perhaps more importantly, the rest of Russia's siloviki, stand to gain that makes waging an open war and/or counter-insurgency against ~60 million Poles and Romanians worthwhile? If you think Putin is just trying to paint the map like a Hearts of Iron player.....that perspective is simply not in touch with reality. > I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe. You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe, when he had Europe's most important economy in his back pocket: 2000-20013. [1] Russia was printing money selling petrochemicals to German industry. The oligarchs were fat, happy, and spent a bunch of their cash buying European vacation homes and sports teams. The biggest person rocking the boat was Georgia's Mikhael Sakhashvili[2], who Putin simply slapped down as a warning to the US, then went back to printing money (assisted by greasing the wheels with Gerhard Schroder's help)[3]. Second-biggest person rocking the boat was George Bush's administration, which refused to ratify the START II treaty[4], then unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty[5], then insisted on putting ABMs in Russia's near-abroad[6]. And yet....life in Europe got along just fine. [0] https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/05/poland-south-korea-defense-partnership-grows-with-weapons-procurements/ https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/05/poland-south-korea-defens... [1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vladimir-putin-is-forbes-most-powerful-person-in-the-world/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vladimir-putin-is-forbes-... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger... [4] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-between-united-states-america-and-union-soviet-socialist-republics-strategic-offensive-reductions-start-ii/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr... [5] https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-limitation-anti-ballistic-missile-systems-abm-treaty/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/tr... [6] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm-shield-in-europe-and-russias-response-ari/ https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...

defrost 2y ago

> you cannot be too loose of a cannon at the top Meanwhile, in reality: “Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war?” What’s amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards. The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. It is about enabling the President’s power, not checking or restricting him. In a three part detailed longform: The President and the Bomb (2016) https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and... Part II https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/12/23/the-president-and-the-bomb-redux/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/12/23/the-president-and... Part III https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-iii/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-ii...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to This may be necessary to ensure the deterrent is credible. But for first strike use, authorisation should require at the very least Congressional approval. (Not the whole Congress, obviously, but maybe the Senate Select and House Permanent Select Committees.) Ideally, all three branches of government.
- defrost 2y ago
  " should " Ah, should - imagine a world in which "should" carried sway. Meanwhile: Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-72 - Nuclear Operations (2020) POSITIVE CONTROL The President may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an execute order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control of the weapons. Page 21 of 29: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Doctrine-Publications/AFDP-3-72-Nuclear-Ops/ https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Doctrine-Publications/AFDP-3-72-... For anybody in the chain that might question that, or want Congressional approval consider the fate of Harold Hering, the Major who was kicked out of the Air Force for asking a “dangerous question” while training to be a Missile Launch Officer at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Hering had asked, in essence, how could he, in his Minuteman missile bunker, know that an order to launch he received from the President had been a legal, considered, and sane one? The answer is, you don't, you just jump as high as you can. ( even if the guy telling you to jump is also telling you they're eating cats and dogs in Ohio )