7 ms·

No, it is not. Russia was attacked by Ukraine multiple times and nukes are still not used. India, Pakistan and China are in various stages of conflicts with eac

No, it is not. Russia was attacked by Ukraine multiple times and nukes are still not used. India, Pakistan and China are in various stages of conflicts with each other for decades and all of them are nuke-enabled super-powers. There are three points of having nukes: 1. Deter other countries with nukes from using them against you, or your military ally. 2. Prevent total annihilation in the war. You can lose the war, but not too much. 3. Burn the world to ashes. Very few countries can do it. It effectively forces the whole world to make sure that this scenario does not happen. So you can be sure that scenario where Ukraine conquers Russia and completely destroys it - will be prevented by the very Ukraine supporters. They don't want to live in the nuclear post-apocalypse, because there are scenarios where Russia fires every single nuclear missile on every major city on the Earth. As Putin framed it: We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will simply drop dead. America lost several wars, recently they lost Afghanistan war and right now they're losing Iran war. They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table, they'll accept the lose.

H8crilA 6mo ago
America has lost every war in the recent past.
- edgyquant 6mo ago
  It hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
  - myrmidon 6mo ago
    If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end). Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior. The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.
    - roncesvalles 6mo ago
      One of the reasons to do a war is to simply show the enemy that you are able and crazy enough to go to war with them over whatever grievances you had. This is called strategic deterrence. You are making the folly of thinking of war like lawsuits, where one side wins and the other side loses, and the losing side goes home with nothing. This is not so. If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
      - voganmother42 6mo ago
        “A Kourier has to establish space on the pavement. Predictable law-abiding behavior lulls drivers. They mentally assign you to a little box in the lane, assume you will stay there, can't handle it when you leave that little box.” - Snow Crash Is it strategic deterrence, or just being so unreliably and inconsistent that insider information becomes more valuable? Is it strategic to demonstrate a lack of planning or that you are a poor ally incapable of garnering support (either domestically or abroad)?
      - myrmidon 6mo ago
        You can both "win" or both "lose" if your goals are not in direct conflict (rare). I'd argue that the most important thing when trying to win wars is to aim for realistic outcomes. The first gulf war was arguably a win because of realistic goals (get Iraq out of Kuwait and stop them from invading it again), while most other interventions in the region were basically "designed to fail", and unsurprisingly never achieved anything of note (and the problem was not lack of military capability).
      - protocolture 6mo ago
        Yes but if you spend some billions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, you have only demonstrated that you are willing to make your own citizens suffer with diminished resources for no outcome. >If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead. In global politics, this tends to make you want to increase your defenses so it doesn't happen again, and find local partners for that defense. This usually comes at the cost of US influence, not its increase. Like Iran is looking at its current situation and going "The literal only deterrence we could have to prevent this is to develop a nuclear capability. The US cannot be trusted to deal with, and it is pointless to try." A nuclear Iran can now only be avoided by scorched earth. Scorched earth will now just cause an already partly US hating population to hate them more and create matyrs. Theres no possible upside to this conflict.
  - data_maan 6mo ago
    https://www.worldatlas.com/us-history/wars-the-united-states-didn-t-win.html https://www.worldatlas.com/us-history/wars-the-united-states...
  - afthonos 6mo ago
    The term of art for losing politically is “losing”.
  - senderista 6mo ago
    War is fought to achieve political objectives. If those objectives are not achieved then it is only fair to say you lost the war.
- kasey_junk 6mo ago
  Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better? The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen. The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US. Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet). These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.
  - roncesvalles 6mo ago
    The Gulf War was a decisive victory, if you consider that recent.
  - H8crilA 6mo ago
    Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.
    - kasey_junk 6mo ago
      Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.
      - dlisboa 6mo ago
        Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks: * Depose's Saddam government Accomplished. * Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs Failed. They were never there. * Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath. * Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS. * End sanctions Accomplished. * Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete. * Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region. * Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government" Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.
bambax 6mo ago
> They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes. Another scenario is, he tries to invade, an Iranian drone makes it through and sinks a big US ship, hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers die in a very short period of time. Now everyone's upset and the American public screams "revenge". Then anything can happen, really.
- wiseowise 6mo ago
  > How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes. Whole world will boycott USA if they use nukes.
  - don_esteban 6mo ago
    Will they? US can squeeze Europe/Japan as much as they want. Just disable Microsoft/Google/AWS/Apple crap for them and they will be on their knees. Although, I will give larger chances of Israel using nukes than then US.
    - salawat 6mo ago
      Ah hahahaha. Yeah... No. Contrary to popular belief, the 2-300 year old upstart that is the United States doesn't have a magical lynchpin it can pull to get the other longstanding nations of the world to acquiesce entirely. If the U.S. really pushes things, it will soon find itself on the shit list of everyone else on whom we rely for implementing key links in the supply chain. I honestly do not understand where the gung ho America ooh rah comes from anymore these days. People, we sold out our industrial base. We sold out how to make things. We sold out everything that wasn't nailed down chasing cheaper payroll to undercut the American worker. This country is not as on it's own two feet as we like to believe. One need only look at the supply chain disruptions of the last decade to understand that. So much goodwill. Just up in smoke. Smfh.
      - i_am_a_peasant 6mo ago
FpUser 6mo ago
This applies to incumbents (well maybe until it does not). Smaller countries facing destruction of their regime might actually use the nukes. Probably do the test first along with the warning
ibejoeb 6mo ago
> they're losing Iran war. What criteria are you using for this assessment?
- schmidtleonard 6mo ago
  Pool's closed.
- thejohnconway 6mo ago
  If we look at the stated goals (as inconsistent as they have been): Unconditional surrender -> nope Regime change via popular uprising -> nope Destruction or removal of enriched uranium -> nope Destruction of drones and ballistic missile capability -> nope Final goal of getting back to the pre-war state (which is admitting loss in itself): Reopen in the straight of Hormuz -> nope So no objectives have been achieved, and although you could argue they will be in the future, this seems increasingly unlikely in the short timeline the Trump admin has given themselves. It any of them were possible at all, which seems doubtful.
- tristor 6mo ago
  > What criteria are you using for this assessment? We lost the moment we started because we went on a whim and without a cohesive strategy. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and the longer it goes on the more obvious it becomes that this administration has no idea what it is doing.

H8crilA 6mo ago

America has lost every war in the recent past.

edgyquant 6mo ago
It hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
- myrmidon 6mo ago
  If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end). Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior. The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.
  - roncesvalles 6mo ago
    One of the reasons to do a war is to simply show the enemy that you are able and crazy enough to go to war with them over whatever grievances you had. This is called strategic deterrence. You are making the folly of thinking of war like lawsuits, where one side wins and the other side loses, and the losing side goes home with nothing. This is not so. If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
    - voganmother42 6mo ago
      “A Kourier has to establish space on the pavement. Predictable law-abiding behavior lulls drivers. They mentally assign you to a little box in the lane, assume you will stay there, can't handle it when you leave that little box.” - Snow Crash Is it strategic deterrence, or just being so unreliably and inconsistent that insider information becomes more valuable? Is it strategic to demonstrate a lack of planning or that you are a poor ally incapable of garnering support (either domestically or abroad)?
    - myrmidon 6mo ago
      You can both "win" or both "lose" if your goals are not in direct conflict (rare). I'd argue that the most important thing when trying to win wars is to aim for realistic outcomes. The first gulf war was arguably a win because of realistic goals (get Iraq out of Kuwait and stop them from invading it again), while most other interventions in the region were basically "designed to fail", and unsurprisingly never achieved anything of note (and the problem was not lack of military capability).
    - protocolture 6mo ago
      Yes but if you spend some billions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, you have only demonstrated that you are willing to make your own citizens suffer with diminished resources for no outcome. >If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead. In global politics, this tends to make you want to increase your defenses so it doesn't happen again, and find local partners for that defense. This usually comes at the cost of US influence, not its increase. Like Iran is looking at its current situation and going "The literal only deterrence we could have to prevent this is to develop a nuclear capability. The US cannot be trusted to deal with, and it is pointless to try." A nuclear Iran can now only be avoided by scorched earth. Scorched earth will now just cause an already partly US hating population to hate them more and create matyrs. Theres no possible upside to this conflict.
- data_maan 6mo ago
  https://www.worldatlas.com/us-history/wars-the-united-states-didn-t-win.html https://www.worldatlas.com/us-history/wars-the-united-states...
- afthonos 6mo ago
  The term of art for losing politically is “losing”.
- senderista 6mo ago
  War is fought to achieve political objectives. If those objectives are not achieved then it is only fair to say you lost the war.
kasey_junk 6mo ago
Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better? The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen. The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US. Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet). These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.
- roncesvalles 6mo ago
  The Gulf War was a decisive victory, if you consider that recent.
- H8crilA 6mo ago
  Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.
  - kasey_junk 6mo ago
    Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.
    - dlisboa 6mo ago
      Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks: * Depose's Saddam government Accomplished. * Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs Failed. They were never there. * Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath. * Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS. * End sanctions Accomplished. * Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete. * Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people" Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region. * Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government" Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.

bambax 6mo ago

> They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes. Another scenario is, he tries to invade, an Iranian drone makes it through and sinks a big US ship, hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers die in a very short period of time. Now everyone's upset and the American public screams "revenge". Then anything can happen, really.

wiseowise 6mo ago
> How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes. Whole world will boycott USA if they use nukes.
- don_esteban 6mo ago
  Will they? US can squeeze Europe/Japan as much as they want. Just disable Microsoft/Google/AWS/Apple crap for them and they will be on their knees. Although, I will give larger chances of Israel using nukes than then US.
  - salawat 6mo ago
    Ah hahahaha. Yeah... No. Contrary to popular belief, the 2-300 year old upstart that is the United States doesn't have a magical lynchpin it can pull to get the other longstanding nations of the world to acquiesce entirely. If the U.S. really pushes things, it will soon find itself on the shit list of everyone else on whom we rely for implementing key links in the supply chain. I honestly do not understand where the gung ho America ooh rah comes from anymore these days. People, we sold out our industrial base. We sold out how to make things. We sold out everything that wasn't nailed down chasing cheaper payroll to undercut the American worker. This country is not as on it's own two feet as we like to believe. One need only look at the supply chain disruptions of the last decade to understand that. So much goodwill. Just up in smoke. Smfh.
    - i_am_a_peasant 6mo ago

FpUser 6mo ago

This applies to incumbents (well maybe until it does not). Smaller countries facing destruction of their regime might actually use the nukes. Probably do the test first along with the warning

ibejoeb 6mo ago

> they're losing Iran war. What criteria are you using for this assessment?

schmidtleonard 6mo ago
Pool's closed.
thejohnconway 6mo ago
If we look at the stated goals (as inconsistent as they have been): Unconditional surrender -> nope Regime change via popular uprising -> nope Destruction or removal of enriched uranium -> nope Destruction of drones and ballistic missile capability -> nope Final goal of getting back to the pre-war state (which is admitting loss in itself): Reopen in the straight of Hormuz -> nope So no objectives have been achieved, and although you could argue they will be in the future, this seems increasingly unlikely in the short timeline the Trump admin has given themselves. It any of them were possible at all, which seems doubtful.
tristor 6mo ago
> What criteria are you using for this assessment? We lost the moment we started because we went on a whim and without a cohesive strategy. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and the longer it goes on the more obvious it becomes that this administration has no idea what it is doing.