3 ms·

In Russia's case, there does appear to be "no budget". The weapons were intended as a last resort, and so they are a great target for diverting maintenance fund

In Russia's case, there does appear to be "no budget". The weapons were intended as a last resort, and so they are a great target for diverting maintenance funds. It's not quite so bad as "we are certain that they will not successfully launch any nukes" and so they're still being treated with caution. But the US keeps upping what it allows Ukraine to do as it loses its fear of World War III. As it applies to the US... yeah, the sky is the limit for military spending.

dgroshev 2y ago
There is no fear of WWIII, that's part media invention, part political excuse, part useful idiots. A "World War" requires an opponent worthy of a world-wide conflict, and Russia is anything but, being stuck in Ukraine for three years and losing most of its army in the process. Conventionally, Russia is no match for NATO, with enough political will it'd be a Desert Storm-like curb stomp. The only way it's not is the US abandoning NATO, then it can be quite painful, but even then Russian economy is no match for the EU. As for nuclear weapons, they are practically useless. Anything but strategic use would have little impact on the battlefield, but will immediately alienate China and India. They have their own border conflicts and do NOT want the nuclear taboo to be broken, and they are holding the leash, being the only economic and technological lifeline Russia has. A strike against the US would be suicidal for obvious reasons. Also, notice how Putin and his officials talk about nuclear use a lot, but there is still zero evidence of any action (such as dispersal of road-based ICBMs or 12th GUMO taking warheads out of storage). Rhetoric is cheap and not credible. The only real fear of escalation here is "horizontal" escalation: Russia stirring shit elsewhere. Advanced anti-ship missiles to Houthis, handing nuclear technology to North Koreans or submarine technology to China, that kind of thing. But that's already seem to be happening, and there isn't much more that Russia can do.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > will immediately alienate China and India To drive this home, India and China have a moderately high probability of engaging in armed conflict with a nuclear power in the next decades. (India with Pakistan and China, China with America.) They do not want tactical nukes to be normalised in prelude to those conflicts.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  There is no fear of WWIII, that's part media invention, part political excuse, part useful idiots. Not true at all. The risk may be overstated by some, but it's a perfectly possible outcome that must be considered.[0] A "World War" requires an opponent worthy of a world-wide conflict, and Russia is anything but Also simply not true. It just requires one side to start using nukes, which can also happen entirely by accident (and has come close to happening multiple times, even without a multi-year and incredibly nasty hot proxy conflict on the ground between two of the planet's largest mutual adversaries). As for nuclear weapons, they are practically useless. True of course, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that certain people might start to think that they're useful and/or their only choice. Which gets into the fact that we can't assume these people are acting rationally. Also, notice how Putin and his officials talk about nuclear use a lot, but there is still zero evidence of any action Right, but that can change at any time. It doesn't even have to be a tactical battlefield strike (which of course would be useless, and their people know it). For example, once their backs are pushed against the wall with sufficient firmness, Putin or his successors might start to think that a demonstrative high-altitude detonation over an ocean somewhere might be a pretty neat idea. Especially if they've reached a point where they have nothing more to lose, and have a reasonable fear of being outright killed sooner or later if the current situation on the ground starts to move strongly and rapidly against them. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41525830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41525830
  - dgroshev 2y ago
    I don't think there is any conceivable scenario in which Russia using nuclear weapons would lead to anything resembling "World War", except Russia launching a counter-value strike against continental US, which is just not happening. A high-altitude detonation is not a "World War". Russia is a China's client state at this point, and China is very interested in keeping nukes taboo. They are so worried their own army is only allowed melee weapons in border skirmishes with India. There is no way a demonstrative breaking of the taboo would not get Putin's leash yanked, so even that remote possibility (that has nothing to do with WW3) is extremely improbable and would only hasten Russia's defeat. Unless, of course, our politicians use it as an excuse to abandon Ukraine. Also, no one is "pushing Russia's back against the wall" in Ukraine, there are no M1A2s speeding to Moscow. Russia understands it perfectly well, too, denuding their borders with NATO to throw more soldiers into the meat grinder. > the fact that we can't assume these people are acting rationally I think this meme is largely a cop-out. A person just doesn't get to be a leader of a country by acting irrationally. They might interpret things differently or have different priorities, they might even put on an act of irrational buffoonery, but it's different from being "irrational". However, to see the rationality of their actions requires putting yourself in theirs shoes, which is uncomfortable and/or requires a deeper understanding, so it's easier to just write their behaviour as "irrational". Putin is perfectly rational. The empty threats are working (as evidenced by this thread), there is no risk of a strategic exchange (because the actual signalling on the ground is one of business as usual), and Western politicians are successfully convincing their voters that they drag their feet because WW3, not because actually stopping the war (eg deploying a NATO peace keeping force) would incur a substantially higher domestic cost. We don't really talk about potential North Korean aggression in WW3 terms, do we? We shouldn't do that in Russian case either.

dgroshev 2y ago

There is no fear of WWIII, that's part media invention, part political excuse, part useful idiots. A "World War" requires an opponent worthy of a world-wide conflict, and Russia is anything but, being stuck in Ukraine for three years and losing most of its army in the process. Conventionally, Russia is no match for NATO, with enough political will it'd be a Desert Storm-like curb stomp. The only way it's not is the US abandoning NATO, then it can be quite painful, but even then Russian economy is no match for the EU. As for nuclear weapons, they are practically useless. Anything but strategic use would have little impact on the battlefield, but will immediately alienate China and India. They have their own border conflicts and do NOT want the nuclear taboo to be broken, and they are holding the leash, being the only economic and technological lifeline Russia has. A strike against the US would be suicidal for obvious reasons. Also, notice how Putin and his officials talk about nuclear use a lot, but there is still zero evidence of any action (such as dispersal of road-based ICBMs or 12th GUMO taking warheads out of storage). Rhetoric is cheap and not credible. The only real fear of escalation here is "horizontal" escalation: Russia stirring shit elsewhere. Advanced anti-ship missiles to Houthis, handing nuclear technology to North Koreans or submarine technology to China, that kind of thing. But that's already seem to be happening, and there isn't much more that Russia can do.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> will immediately alienate China and India To drive this home, India and China have a moderately high probability of engaging in armed conflict with a nuclear power in the next decades. (India with Pakistan and China, China with America.) They do not want tactical nukes to be normalised in prelude to those conflicts.
aguaviva 2y ago
There is no fear of WWIII, that's part media invention, part political excuse, part useful idiots. Not true at all. The risk may be overstated by some, but it's a perfectly possible outcome that must be considered.[0] A "World War" requires an opponent worthy of a world-wide conflict, and Russia is anything but Also simply not true. It just requires one side to start using nukes, which can also happen entirely by accident (and has come close to happening multiple times, even without a multi-year and incredibly nasty hot proxy conflict on the ground between two of the planet's largest mutual adversaries). As for nuclear weapons, they are practically useless. True of course, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that certain people might start to think that they're useful and/or their only choice. Which gets into the fact that we can't assume these people are acting rationally. Also, notice how Putin and his officials talk about nuclear use a lot, but there is still zero evidence of any action Right, but that can change at any time. It doesn't even have to be a tactical battlefield strike (which of course would be useless, and their people know it). For example, once their backs are pushed against the wall with sufficient firmness, Putin or his successors might start to think that a demonstrative high-altitude detonation over an ocean somewhere might be a pretty neat idea. Especially if they've reached a point where they have nothing more to lose, and have a reasonable fear of being outright killed sooner or later if the current situation on the ground starts to move strongly and rapidly against them. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41525830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41525830
- dgroshev 2y ago
  I don't think there is any conceivable scenario in which Russia using nuclear weapons would lead to anything resembling "World War", except Russia launching a counter-value strike against continental US, which is just not happening. A high-altitude detonation is not a "World War". Russia is a China's client state at this point, and China is very interested in keeping nukes taboo. They are so worried their own army is only allowed melee weapons in border skirmishes with India. There is no way a demonstrative breaking of the taboo would not get Putin's leash yanked, so even that remote possibility (that has nothing to do with WW3) is extremely improbable and would only hasten Russia's defeat. Unless, of course, our politicians use it as an excuse to abandon Ukraine. Also, no one is "pushing Russia's back against the wall" in Ukraine, there are no M1A2s speeding to Moscow. Russia understands it perfectly well, too, denuding their borders with NATO to throw more soldiers into the meat grinder. > the fact that we can't assume these people are acting rationally I think this meme is largely a cop-out. A person just doesn't get to be a leader of a country by acting irrationally. They might interpret things differently or have different priorities, they might even put on an act of irrational buffoonery, but it's different from being "irrational". However, to see the rationality of their actions requires putting yourself in theirs shoes, which is uncomfortable and/or requires a deeper understanding, so it's easier to just write their behaviour as "irrational". Putin is perfectly rational. The empty threats are working (as evidenced by this thread), there is no risk of a strategic exchange (because the actual signalling on the ground is one of business as usual), and Western politicians are successfully convincing their voters that they drag their feet because WW3, not because actually stopping the war (eg deploying a NATO peace keeping force) would incur a substantially higher domestic cost. We don't really talk about potential North Korean aggression in WW3 terms, do we? We shouldn't do that in Russian case either.