2 ms·

it is perfectly rational strategy, given their resources and positioning. There is absolutely nothing "madmen" in this strategy. It is an edge, a way to exploi

by slt2021 1y ago

it is perfectly rational strategy, given their resources and positioning. There is absolutely nothing "madmen" in this strategy. It is an edge, a way to exploit an arbitrage on the difference in a will to sacrifice and die between two nations. When you play heads up poker, and your opponent is not willing to risk his pot, you bully him with your betting strategy and extract value ("big stack bully" strategy) >> "and relying on the rest of the world to act like statesmen and leaders" perhaps these "statesmen and leaders" should show more responsibility before unleashing non-stop wars around the world and plunging nations into endless wars, organizing genocides, and faking "muhh weapons of mass destruction" evidence for foreign invasions and occupations

unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
Strange the Soviets would fetishize a strategy they defeated in WWII. It actually fails in all scenarios. If the West perceived the Soviets as rational— which they did— they would not at all expect the Russians to trigger MAD. In an acute conflict there is no stopping point, both will continue to escalate expecting the other to back down. This happened repeatedly in the “non-stop wars” you reference resulting in conventional proxy conflict, not more, partly because the Soviets did act rationally and not according to your strategy . Conversely, if the Soviets convinced the West they truly were committed to mutual annihilation lest the West surrender incrementally, or worse, convinced the West the Soviets could not be prudent stewards of such weapons by willie-nillie glazing this city or that, this would have also triggered an unconstrained response and unlimited escalation spiral. Had the Soviets really gambled and gone all-in with your hyper-rational, inhuman bluff, it’s most likely that we would not be here to have this discussion.

unyttigfjelltol 1y ago

Strange the Soviets would fetishize a strategy they defeated in WWII. It actually fails in all scenarios. If the West perceived the Soviets as rational— which they did— they would not at all expect the Russians to trigger MAD. In an acute conflict there is no stopping point, both will continue to escalate expecting the other to back down. This happened repeatedly in the “non-stop wars” you reference resulting in conventional proxy conflict, not more, partly because the Soviets did act rationally and not according to your strategy . Conversely, if the Soviets convinced the West they truly were committed to mutual annihilation lest the West surrender incrementally, or worse, convinced the West the Soviets could not be prudent stewards of such weapons by willie-nillie glazing this city or that, this would have also triggered an unconstrained response and unlimited escalation spiral. Had the Soviets really gambled and gone all-in with your hyper-rational, inhuman bluff, it’s most likely that we would not be here to have this discussion.