10 ms·

I live in the US. A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange. The world will change in ways forever that none of us can ever foresee at that point.

gertlex 2y ago
Not sure that counts, as we're not using nuclear weapons in practice for current conflicts/engagements. We have the whole other range of combat capabilities, and the distribution of those capabilities in our arsenal/armed forces seems guaranteed to change.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  Then it is just another proxy war, like the last half of the 20th century between major powers.
krisoft 2y ago
> The world will change in ways forever that none of us can ever foresee at that point. Nukes are not magic. Of course we can foresee many of the changes a nuclear exchange would bring. Especially on the “planning for war” level.
energy123 2y ago
> A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange. There are many steps on the escalation ladder before a nuclear exchange.
- Demiurge 2y ago
  How many steps would you guess are left between US and Russia?
  - hnbad 2y ago
    Given that neither side has directly attacked the other yet? Almost all of them. Using nuclear weapons against an opponent who has enough nuclear weapons to retaliate is a "flip over the chess board and stomp on the pieces" move. Presently the US isn't even playing against Russia, at best it's sitting behind Russia's opponent and whispering chess moves into their ear.
    - energy123 2y ago
      There's also gradations of nuclear exchange, including a limited exchange (i.e. not against cities) that doesn't necessarily escalate to a strategic exchange. While obviously extremely dangerous and unpredictable, some think you can skirt that line successfully in a war.
      - throwaway2037 2y ago
        > gradations of nuclear exchange This is the first time that I have seen this terminology. I tried to Google for it, but I cannot find any information about this idea. Are there any war college studies (US/Europe) that you can share? Controversially, I don't think generals from either the US, nor Russia, would be willing to "pull the trigger" and launch a nuclear attack. Yes, I really think there would be a constitutional crisis where senior ministers and military leaders might stage an "instant" coup to prevent a nuclear attack.
marginalia_nu 2y ago
Worth noting that Russia has nuclear weapons, yet elects not to use them against their near peer Ukraine.
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    The Bucharest memorandum contained the promises that: - None of the countries (US, UK, and Russia) would threaten Ukraine’s territory - If nuclear weapons were used against them, or they were threatened by nuclear weapons, the other signatories would “Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance” Among other promises. So it seems like they’ve already had their promises violated.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      Didn't china and France sign it too?
      - nradov 2y ago
        China and France didn't formally sign the Budapest Memorandum. They made separate statements generally in support but aren't obligated to take any real action. https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-and-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-an...
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I can’t believe I mixed up Budapest and Bucharest :(
  - nostrademons 2y ago
    Worth also noting that the nuclear weapons that Ukraine had were useless. All modern (post-1960s) nukes except the UK's are equipped with PALs [1]. Without the launch codes, they are just very expensive hunks of lithium deuteride. The launch codes for Ukraine's nukes remained with the KGB/FSB in Moscow throughout the breakup of the Soviet Union. They had essentially zero negotiating leverage, and as a result got essentially zero out of the negotiation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link
JohnBooty 2y ago
A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange Respectfully, I think you're misunderstanding the term. The term is meant to represent the level of resources and weapons each combatant is bringing to the theater of conflict. It does not mean that the two sides are necessarily using the most destructive possible weapons in their arsenals. A hypothetical US/China armed conflict over Taiwan (god forbid) would be "near-peer" even if neither side goes nuclear. "Near-peer" is meant to distinguish that sort of conflict from, let's say, US vs. Taliban in Afghanistan where the two sides had vastly different levels of technology and capability. Or maybe you're making the point that two nuclear states would be hard-pressed to fight an open war that did not devolve into a nuclear exchange. Which is a very valid concern. If that's your point, I apologize.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  > Which is a very valid concern. If that's your point, I apologize. It's a valid point to argue, but it does need to be argued, not assumed.
lumost 2y ago
This assumes that any party to a conflict chooses to use their nuclear arsenal. In WW2, both sides had chemical weapons but chose not to use them due to concerns of reciprocal strikes coupled with a perceived limited utility. We could be entering a world where there is always a military alternative to nuclear weapons, leaving nukes in a state where their only utility is as a deterrent against another nuclear power using them.
- closewith 2y ago
  Or more importantly, refrained from use of chemical weapons against those who could retaliate in kind. Japan used chemical and biological weapons in China.
preisschild 2y ago
Not necessarily. Loosing a war is probably preferential to loosing your entire country, because mutually assured destruction using nukes is still a thing.
- simiones 2y ago
  There is no guarantee whatsoever that if Russia were to launch a nuke on Ukraine, the USA or any other country would launch one against Russia. If they launched one on the USA or a EU country, that would be a different matter.
onepointsixC 2y ago
The closest near peer to the US is China which strategically is significantly inferior to the US and would very much not like to get into a nuclear exchange. But conventionally it has more vessels than the USN, and with nearly all of them near China while the USN is all over the world, they have an advantage early in a Taiwan war. Conventional wars between nuclear powers can be fought and won.

gertlex 2y ago

Not sure that counts, as we're not using nuclear weapons in practice for current conflicts/engagements. We have the whole other range of combat capabilities, and the distribution of those capabilities in our arsenal/armed forces seems guaranteed to change.

sidewndr46 2y ago
Then it is just another proxy war, like the last half of the 20th century between major powers.

krisoft 2y ago

> The world will change in ways forever that none of us can ever foresee at that point. Nukes are not magic. Of course we can foresee many of the changes a nuclear exchange would bring. Especially on the “planning for war” level.

energy123 2y ago

> A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange. There are many steps on the escalation ladder before a nuclear exchange.

Demiurge 2y ago
How many steps would you guess are left between US and Russia?
- hnbad 2y ago
  Given that neither side has directly attacked the other yet? Almost all of them. Using nuclear weapons against an opponent who has enough nuclear weapons to retaliate is a "flip over the chess board and stomp on the pieces" move. Presently the US isn't even playing against Russia, at best it's sitting behind Russia's opponent and whispering chess moves into their ear.
  - energy123 2y ago
    There's also gradations of nuclear exchange, including a limited exchange (i.e. not against cities) that doesn't necessarily escalate to a strategic exchange. While obviously extremely dangerous and unpredictable, some think you can skirt that line successfully in a war.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      > gradations of nuclear exchange This is the first time that I have seen this terminology. I tried to Google for it, but I cannot find any information about this idea. Are there any war college studies (US/Europe) that you can share? Controversially, I don't think generals from either the US, nor Russia, would be willing to "pull the trigger" and launch a nuclear attack. Yes, I really think there would be a constitutional crisis where senior ministers and military leaders might stage an "instant" coup to prevent a nuclear attack.

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Worth noting that Russia has nuclear weapons, yet elects not to use them against their near peer Ukraine.

WillAdams 2y ago
Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The Bucharest memorandum contained the promises that: - None of the countries (US, UK, and Russia) would threaten Ukraine’s territory - If nuclear weapons were used against them, or they were threatened by nuclear weapons, the other signatories would “Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance” Among other promises. So it seems like they’ve already had their promises violated.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    Didn't china and France sign it too?
    - nradov 2y ago
      China and France didn't formally sign the Budapest Memorandum. They made separate statements generally in support but aren't obligated to take any real action. https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-and-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-an...
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I can’t believe I mixed up Budapest and Bucharest :(
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Worth also noting that the nuclear weapons that Ukraine had were useless. All modern (post-1960s) nukes except the UK's are equipped with PALs [1]. Without the launch codes, they are just very expensive hunks of lithium deuteride. The launch codes for Ukraine's nukes remained with the KGB/FSB in Moscow throughout the breakup of the Soviet Union. They had essentially zero negotiating leverage, and as a result got essentially zero out of the negotiation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link

JohnBooty 2y ago

A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange Respectfully, I think you're misunderstanding the term. The term is meant to represent the level of resources and weapons each combatant is bringing to the theater of conflict. It does not mean that the two sides are necessarily using the most destructive possible weapons in their arsenals. A hypothetical US/China armed conflict over Taiwan (god forbid) would be "near-peer" even if neither side goes nuclear. "Near-peer" is meant to distinguish that sort of conflict from, let's say, US vs. Taliban in Afghanistan where the two sides had vastly different levels of technology and capability. Or maybe you're making the point that two nuclear states would be hard-pressed to fight an open war that did not devolve into a nuclear exchange. Which is a very valid concern. If that's your point, I apologize.

andrewflnr 2y ago
> Which is a very valid concern. If that's your point, I apologize. It's a valid point to argue, but it does need to be argued, not assumed.

lumost 2y ago

This assumes that any party to a conflict chooses to use their nuclear arsenal. In WW2, both sides had chemical weapons but chose not to use them due to concerns of reciprocal strikes coupled with a perceived limited utility. We could be entering a world where there is always a military alternative to nuclear weapons, leaving nukes in a state where their only utility is as a deterrent against another nuclear power using them.

closewith 2y ago
Or more importantly, refrained from use of chemical weapons against those who could retaliate in kind. Japan used chemical and biological weapons in China.

preisschild 2y ago

Not necessarily. Loosing a war is probably preferential to loosing your entire country, because mutually assured destruction using nukes is still a thing.

simiones 2y ago
There is no guarantee whatsoever that if Russia were to launch a nuke on Ukraine, the USA or any other country would launch one against Russia. If they launched one on the USA or a EU country, that would be a different matter.

onepointsixC 2y ago

The closest near peer to the US is China which strategically is significantly inferior to the US and would very much not like to get into a nuclear exchange. But conventionally it has more vessels than the USN, and with nearly all of them near China while the USN is all over the world, they have an advantage early in a Taiwan war. Conventional wars between nuclear powers can be fought and won.