4 ms·

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 c

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.

aguaviva 2y ago
A high-altitude detonation is not a "World War" Obviously (as in very obviously) this wouldn't be the big one in itself, but an entirely possible provocation that could shove things in that direction. China is a significant inhibiting factor, but one factor among many. "Client state" is a caricature, the relationship is more complex than that. Also, no one is "pushing Russia's back against the wall" in Ukraine, there are no M1A2s speeding to Moscow It doesn't need to be tanks speeding to Moscow. A major shift in the ground situation Ukraine's favor (effectively signaling an eventual Russian defeat) could do the trick. Also no one said this was presently happening, so your use of the present tense is puzzling here. Putin is perfectly rational. He isn't simply "irrational", but he definitely isn't "perfectly rational" either. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bullied his own advisors to a point where they were afraid to express their own opinions (or even provide rational assessments) in regard the neat little plan he decided to roll into action in the Fall of '21. And what he apparently does in all seriousness believe about his own manifest destiny (as the restorer of the Motherland's natural position of greatness) definitely isn't rational. There's also the matter of his successors, who won't be nearly as smart, and will likely be far less rational. The empty threats are working (as evidenced by this thread), I guess everyone who doesn't agree with your assessments is either paralyzed by irrational fears, and/or a useful idiot, or just looking for a cop-out.
- dgroshev 2y ago
  > an entirely possible provocation that could shove things in that direction How? What plausible pathway do you see between Russia exploding a nuke over Novaya Zemlya and their suicide by American nuclear response? > A major shift in the ground situation Ukraine's favor (effectively signaling an eventual Russian defeat) could do the trick. I don't understand what trick. Russia directly attacking NATO? They'd get pulverised, and they have no forces left. Russia committing a suicide by launching a strategic attack on the US over Donbas? That's implausible. They just lost a chunk of Russia proper and took it on the chin. > I guess everyone who doesn't agree with your assessments is either paralyzed by irrational fears, and/or a useful idiot, or just looking for a cop-out. I see how it's easy to interpret the earlier reply personally, my bad, sorry. I was referring to the people establishing the narrative (media, politicians, and people with large platforms). It's self evidently working! A direct confrontation with Russia (a country with an economy smaller than Italy's, glaring manpower problems, and largely depleted army) evokes the idea of WW3, but I see very few people talking about the very likely war over Taiwan (with a much, much, much more powerful country) in "WW3" terms. This narrative doesn't make any logical sense, we just got used to it, even though it's not grounded in reality.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Why are you picking the oblique and obviously implausible case of Putin trying to "scare" the West by detonating a device on his own territory (and as far away from his adversaries as possible)? What people are worried about is a low-yield device over the Black Sea or the North Sea, say. The "pathway" is that any deployment of a device will at the very least trigger a suite of necessary countermeasures on both sides (moving assets around and so forth), greatly increasing the risk of misperceptions and panic reactions. I don't understand what trick. Russia directly attacking NATO? The "trick", by which I mean outcome simply, of pushing the regime into an (acutely) fatalistic mindset. The reaction doesn't have to be a direct attack on NATO. It could be some other form of escalation (of the sort they might have ruled out otherwise). It doesn't even have to be an action taken by Russia. It could a matter of China looking at the situation and thinking, in terms of the move they've always been threatening to make, "now or never". I'd rather not delve into scenarios; I'm just advocating that we observe the cautionary principle here. We agree that the risk is overstated, and that the aggressor's threats are mostly bluster. But it's definitely not negligible risk, in my view; probably on the order of 3-5 percent per year. As high as at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, in any case.

aguaviva 2y ago

A high-altitude detonation is not a "World War" Obviously (as in very obviously) this wouldn't be the big one in itself, but an entirely possible provocation that could shove things in that direction. China is a significant inhibiting factor, but one factor among many. "Client state" is a caricature, the relationship is more complex than that. Also, no one is "pushing Russia's back against the wall" in Ukraine, there are no M1A2s speeding to Moscow It doesn't need to be tanks speeding to Moscow. A major shift in the ground situation Ukraine's favor (effectively signaling an eventual Russian defeat) could do the trick. Also no one said this was presently happening, so your use of the present tense is puzzling here. Putin is perfectly rational. He isn't simply "irrational", but he definitely isn't "perfectly rational" either. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bullied his own advisors to a point where they were afraid to express their own opinions (or even provide rational assessments) in regard the neat little plan he decided to roll into action in the Fall of '21. And what he apparently does in all seriousness believe about his own manifest destiny (as the restorer of the Motherland's natural position of greatness) definitely isn't rational. There's also the matter of his successors, who won't be nearly as smart, and will likely be far less rational. The empty threats are working (as evidenced by this thread), I guess everyone who doesn't agree with your assessments is either paralyzed by irrational fears, and/or a useful idiot, or just looking for a cop-out.

dgroshev 2y ago
> an entirely possible provocation that could shove things in that direction How? What plausible pathway do you see between Russia exploding a nuke over Novaya Zemlya and their suicide by American nuclear response? > A major shift in the ground situation Ukraine's favor (effectively signaling an eventual Russian defeat) could do the trick. I don't understand what trick. Russia directly attacking NATO? They'd get pulverised, and they have no forces left. Russia committing a suicide by launching a strategic attack on the US over Donbas? That's implausible. They just lost a chunk of Russia proper and took it on the chin. > I guess everyone who doesn't agree with your assessments is either paralyzed by irrational fears, and/or a useful idiot, or just looking for a cop-out. I see how it's easy to interpret the earlier reply personally, my bad, sorry. I was referring to the people establishing the narrative (media, politicians, and people with large platforms). It's self evidently working! A direct confrontation with Russia (a country with an economy smaller than Italy's, glaring manpower problems, and largely depleted army) evokes the idea of WW3, but I see very few people talking about the very likely war over Taiwan (with a much, much, much more powerful country) in "WW3" terms. This narrative doesn't make any logical sense, we just got used to it, even though it's not grounded in reality.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Why are you picking the oblique and obviously implausible case of Putin trying to "scare" the West by detonating a device on his own territory (and as far away from his adversaries as possible)? What people are worried about is a low-yield device over the Black Sea or the North Sea, say. The "pathway" is that any deployment of a device will at the very least trigger a suite of necessary countermeasures on both sides (moving assets around and so forth), greatly increasing the risk of misperceptions and panic reactions. I don't understand what trick. Russia directly attacking NATO? The "trick", by which I mean outcome simply, of pushing the regime into an (acutely) fatalistic mindset. The reaction doesn't have to be a direct attack on NATO. It could be some other form of escalation (of the sort they might have ruled out otherwise). It doesn't even have to be an action taken by Russia. It could a matter of China looking at the situation and thinking, in terms of the move they've always been threatening to make, "now or never". I'd rather not delve into scenarios; I'm just advocating that we observe the cautionary principle here. We agree that the risk is overstated, and that the aggressor's threats are mostly bluster. But it's definitely not negligible risk, in my view; probably on the order of 3-5 percent per year. As high as at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, in any case.