4 ms·

> how do you tell when a war has gone hot When attacks are carried out or when an annexation is taking place. It's really quite simple to identify when a hosti

by bilekas 10mo ago

> how do you tell when a war has gone hot When attacks are carried out or when an annexation is taking place. It's really quite simple to identify when a hostile force is moving in. > Stanislav Petrov Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not.

ben_w 10mo ago
> Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not. 1. Was actually on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow. 2. Was absolutely an ambiguity. The USSR's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, his ultimate confirmation that the satellite warning was in error was the subsequent non-arrival of an exploding nuke. The argument that Petrov relied on to make an informed guess in advance is essentially "it would be strange and surprising for the USA to attack in this way". Nobody could make such an argument to justify failing to respond to a suspected attack while Trump is in charge, because Trump is repeatedly observed doing strange and surprising things like calling for an annexation of multiple allies or violating the US constitution and apparently getting away with it.
- bilekas 10mo ago
  Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion. The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious and to claim it's compatible to the cold war is nothing but gaslighting in my opinion. What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion. Your description of the forces in Greenland matches Petrov's orders: don't wait for confirmation. His orders were to immediately raise it with superiors, which he chose not to do. Your description of Petrov matches the forces in Greenland: cogs in a machine. > The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious Not to soldiers on the receiving end. That's the problem. I was recently linked to this story, same category problem with different details and impact: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier-on-training-exercise/a-74465052 https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier... > What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally. Troubling, yes. Ignored? Ah, no, not in Europe it isn't? Are you American or Danish?

by bilekas 10mo ago

ben_w 10mo ago

> Was litterally under the sea with no communications and took the prescient approach of better to wait. This is not some ambiiguity of hot war or not. 1. Was actually on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow. 2. Was absolutely an ambiguity. The USSR's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, his ultimate confirmation that the satellite warning was in error was the subsequent non-arrival of an exploding nuke. The argument that Petrov relied on to make an informed guess in advance is essentially "it would be strange and surprising for the USA to attack in this way". Nobody could make such an argument to justify failing to respond to a suspected attack while Trump is in charge, because Trump is repeatedly observed doing strange and surprising things like calling for an annexation of multiple allies or violating the US constitution and apparently getting away with it.

bilekas 10mo ago
Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion. The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious and to claim it's compatible to the cold war is nothing but gaslighting in my opinion. What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > Okay. I'm wrong, he was a cog in the chain to report an attack in order to facilitate a response to a nuclear attack. It's not the same though, Greenland is litterally saying don't wait for confirmation of invasion. Your description of the forces in Greenland matches Petrov's orders: don't wait for confirmation. His orders were to immediately raise it with superiors, which he chose not to do. Your description of Petrov matches the forces in Greenland: cogs in a machine. > The stakes are completely different and not comparable. A hot war in Greenland is extremely obvious Not to soldiers on the receiving end. That's the problem. I was recently linked to this story, same category problem with different details and impact: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier-on-training-exercise/a-74465052 https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-mistakenly-shoot-soldier... > What's more troubling, that is being ignored by this debate, is the fact that we are even considering this with an ally. Troubling, yes. Ignored? Ah, no, not in Europe it isn't? Are you American or Danish?