6 ms·

Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump

by samsin 2y ago

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...
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Do you think rewarding the aggressor with large-scale land concessions (the only kind they have indicated they will accept), along with other concessions they will certainly demand (a lifting of sanctions, no need to pay financial restitution for the immense suffering and damage they have caused; and certainly no prosecution for war crimes) -- can provide a viable foundation for "peace"?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? If affects it. We just can't universally say which way. Appeasement is the classic example of escalatory de-escalation. But a better one is the Cold War: America or the USSR entering or withdrawing from a particular theatre, e.g. Vietnam or Afghanistan, was on average orthogonal to risk of nuclear war. Whether a peace deal enhances or damages the peace is context dependent and can swing either way. > De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024 What a strange comment to make in the context of nuclear strategy. Should the U.S. unilaterally dismantle its nuclear deterrent?
- samsin 2y ago
  >Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small. The UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades. Not because of the risk of a 'fuckup', but due to geopolitical tensions. Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades Would love to see how they're calculating this. I'd agree we're at post-Cold War high in terms of risk of nuclear war. But that's because we have more nuclear states than before [1]. I'm sceptical we're worse off than the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and former Communist officials were busy staging coups and whatnot. I'm also sceptical that Russia and America are at greater risk of nuclear war than during e.g. the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Syrian civil war. > Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension Sure. Though it's difficult to argue anything about nuclear use historically given they've only been used in one campaign, the Cold War was a strategic nuclear stalemate, and the post-Cold War era doesn't particularly sustain your hypothesis. (Pyongyang and Pakistan being particularly-potent wildcards.) For the sake of argument, however, let's assume you're right. Are you claiming Donald Trump wasn't a source of geopolitical tension? The Trump who continued our occupation of Afghanistan, boosted troops in Iraq and Syria, offed an Iranian major general and seriously weighed leaving NATO? All while launching a multi-pronged salvo at China? This isn't a Trump v Biden or Harris thing. It's just the reality of a superpower expressing its geopolitical interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump

by samsin 2y ago

Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump

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...
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Do you think rewarding the aggressor with large-scale land concessions (the only kind they have indicated they will accept), along with other concessions they will certainly demand (a lifting of sanctions, no need to pay financial restitution for the immense suffering and damage they have caused; and certainly no prosecution for war crimes) -- can provide a viable foundation for "peace"?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? If affects it. We just can't universally say which way. Appeasement is the classic example of escalatory de-escalation. But a better one is the Cold War: America or the USSR entering or withdrawing from a particular theatre, e.g. Vietnam or Afghanistan, was on average orthogonal to risk of nuclear war. Whether a peace deal enhances or damages the peace is context dependent and can swing either way. > De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024 What a strange comment to make in the context of nuclear strategy. Should the U.S. unilaterally dismantle its nuclear deterrent?
samsin 2y ago
>Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small. The UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades. Not because of the risk of a 'fuckup', but due to geopolitical tensions. Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades Would love to see how they're calculating this. I'd agree we're at post-Cold War high in terms of risk of nuclear war. But that's because we have more nuclear states than before [1]. I'm sceptical we're worse off than the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and former Communist officials were busy staging coups and whatnot. I'm also sceptical that Russia and America are at greater risk of nuclear war than during e.g. the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Syrian civil war. > Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension Sure. Though it's difficult to argue anything about nuclear use historically given they've only been used in one campaign, the Cold War was a strategic nuclear stalemate, and the post-Cold War era doesn't particularly sustain your hypothesis. (Pyongyang and Pakistan being particularly-potent wildcards.) For the sake of argument, however, let's assume you're right. Are you claiming Donald Trump wasn't a source of geopolitical tension? The Trump who continued our occupation of Afghanistan, boosted troops in Iraq and Syria, offed an Iranian major general and seriously weighed leaving NATO? All while launching a multi-pronged salvo at China? This isn't a Trump v Biden or Harris thing. It's just the reality of a superpower expressing its geopolitical interests. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...