|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed.
Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating.
Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own.
Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. There have been hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear states and not one of them has escalated to a nuclear exchange because the red lines are very far from a conventional exchange resulting in the loss of military assets.
|
On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning.
Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind.
On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. There have been hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear states and not one of them has escalated to a nuclear exchange because the red lines are very far from a conventional exchange resulting in the loss of military assets.
those "great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange" means NOT starting a air war vs the Russians as the Russian regime fights for what it considers a matter of national survival. Because such an air war spirals very quickly into broader war. Which means nukes. I don't understand what is difficult about this.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind.
Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. There have been hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear states and not one of them has escalated to a nuclear exchange because the red lines are very far from a conventional exchange resulting in the loss of military assets. those "great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange" means NOT starting a air war vs the Russians as the Russian regime fights for what it considers a matter of national survival. Because such an air war spirals very quickly into broader war. Which means nukes. I don't understand what is difficult about this.
Ukraine is not a war of national survival for Russia lol. A war of national survival is a war where the nation doesn't survive if they lose. Russia existed last week without control of Ukraine and yet you're asking me to believe that they won't survive next week without it? It's absurd.
Your insistence that the US be the more responsible party and not risk engagement over Ukraine because it would risk war presumes that there is no Russian will to avoid that war. You can't just race to surrender immediately every time. They have just as much incentive to avoid engagement and no more right to Ukrainian airspace than NATO does. The obligation is on Russia not to start an air war more than it is on NATO and yet you advocate giving them their demands for free.
If a police officer and a criminal are both armed it would be absurd to demand that the police officer stand down to avoid a potential firefight. And yet that is exactly the argument you are making, as if the criminal is not also incentivized to avoid that firefight. I agree that the firefight is undesirable and that is why I believe that the criminal will prefer to go home empty handed than escalate it.
|
On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live.
Please list some of those conventional exchanges between nuclear powers. Note that I mean warfare involving significant conventional military hardware, i.e. something more than "50 soldiers have border scuffle, 5 die, nothing more happens" Since you are advocating warfare between NATO and Russian air forces, I am looking for something roughly comparable to that in term of sophistication.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 14:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak.
When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live. Please list some of those conventional exchanges between nuclear powers. Note that I mean warfare involving significant conventional military hardware, i.e. something more than "50 soldiers have border scuffle, 5 die, nothing more happens" Since you are advocating warfare between NATO and Russian air forces, I am looking for something roughly comparable to that in term of sophistication.
"If we exclude all those times when it happened then it's never happened"
|
On February 27 2022 14:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live. Please list some of those conventional exchanges between nuclear powers. Note that I mean warfare involving significant conventional military hardware, i.e. something more than "50 soldiers have border scuffle, 5 die, nothing more happens" Since you are advocating warfare between NATO and Russian air forces, I am looking for something roughly comparable to that in term of sophistication. "If we exclude all those times when it happened then it's never happened"
So, you admit that all those "major conventional military battles" between nuclear powers that you described are fantasies of your imagination? What you are advocating in Ukraine is definitely a lot more than "50 soldiers have border scuffle, 5 die, nothing more happens". What you are advocating is an unprecedented level of military combat between 2 nuclear armed powers. No one knows what happens then. We do know that we nearly destroyed the world before in confrontations between nuclear armed powers over much smaller stakes, involving much less shooting at one another.
|
On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live.
I understand you're getting argumentative because you're frustrated with TLoA, but I imagine you'll agree with the following statements:
1) We have never had a nuclear war between nuclear powers.
2) Going from "0 nuclear wars between nuclear powers in history" and "1 nuclear war between nuclear powers in history" would be extremely costly and it's worth trying pretty hard to avoid.
3) When trying to prevent a thing that has never happened before, a frequentist approach is not going to be very useful.
Like, I understand what it accomplishes rhetorically to say "conventional warfare between nuclear powers has a 0% track record of leading to nuclear war" but I don't think it's actually very illuminating. Not that my hopes are very high for an illuminating discussion to arise between you and TLoA right this moment but idk, at this moment on this topic I really hate the conversation going this way.
|
Seen a lot of reports that Russia is preparing to escalate this war with much heavier use of artillery, thermobaric weapons, etc. Kyiv might be about to get far more destroyed.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 14:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak.
When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live. I understand you're getting argumentative because you're frustrated with TLoA, but I imagine you'll agree with the following statements: 1) We have never had a nuclear war between nuclear powers. 2) Going from "0 nuclear wars between nuclear powers in history" and "1 nuclear war between nuclear powers in history" would be extremely costly and it's worth trying pretty hard to avoid. 3) When trying to prevent a thing that has never happened before, a frequentist approach is not going to be very useful. Like, I understand what it accomplishes rhetorically to say "conventional warfare between nuclear powers has a 0% track record of leading to nuclear war" but I don't think it's actually very illuminating. Not that my hopes are very high for an illuminating discussion to arise between you and TLoA right this moment but idk, at this moment on this topic I really hate the conversation going this way.
It’s precisely because it’s so important to avoid it that we can trust nations to act rationally when deciding what their red lines are. They’re weapons of last resort for when backs are against the wall, no rational actor would risk a nuclear exchange for anything less. Even dictators must act rationally, they are dependent upon a group of strongmen who have no desire to die.
Looking at previous examples is worthwhile to establish the validity of that thesis. Nuclear powers do not engage in nuclear exchanges over conventional exchanges that do not threaten the nation. They just don’t. There is no reason to think the airspace over Ukraine is any different than mountainsides in Kashmir in that regard. Russia wasn’t threatened by not controlling that airspace a week ago, it logically cannot be an existential threat that Putin, plus all the people he relies upon, are eager to die for.
|
It's quite possible that Putin does see losing this war as an existential threat to himself at least. All the people he has killed, imprisoned or intimidated to stay in power... He is probably a dead man if he doesn't keep his grip on power.
|
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining.
I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me.
I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea.
|
kwark your idea that because weve never experienced nuclear war before we should assume we can trust everyone to not start a nuclear war in future is beyond stupid.
by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway.
On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me.
you dont even realise that the argument youre actually making is that because you threw 20 coins in the air and they all landed on tails, the next coin you throw cannot be heads.
|
On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea.
Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it.
A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box.
EDIT:
by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway.
Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before!
|
Are there any countries are predicting will join NATO after Russia basically ranting about countries not being real countries?
|
On February 27 2022 14:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 14:32 ChristianS wrote:On February 27 2022 14:07 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 14:03 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:59 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:55 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed. Yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. The US and USSR went to great lengths to never end up in the situation you are advocating. Which is precisely why Russia would continue to pursue that policy of deescalation in the face of that potential conflict. Again you are making my argument, not your own. Nuclear red lines are territorial sovereignty and self defence, not fucking around in someone else's country. Russia's nuclear red line is not going to be the airspace over Ukraine. You assure me they would go to great lengths to avoid a nuclear exchange as if that hasn't been my argument from the beginning. Your blithe confidence in Putin's willingness to deescalate conflict is blowing my mind. Your insistence that conventional exchanges lead to nuclear exchanges, despite hundreds of examples to the contrary and not one single example of it happening is confusing the hell out of me. Conventional exchanges between nuclear powers are very frequent and not once have they escalated because humans, as a rule, are pro humanity. Putin may be a dictator but he is still answerable to people. On the day Putin wakes up and thinks "I think it'd be fun if everyone died today" he'll find that most other people would prefer to live. I understand you're getting argumentative because you're frustrated with TLoA, but I imagine you'll agree with the following statements: 1) We have never had a nuclear war between nuclear powers. 2) Going from "0 nuclear wars between nuclear powers in history" and "1 nuclear war between nuclear powers in history" would be extremely costly and it's worth trying pretty hard to avoid. 3) When trying to prevent a thing that has never happened before, a frequentist approach is not going to be very useful. Like, I understand what it accomplishes rhetorically to say "conventional warfare between nuclear powers has a 0% track record of leading to nuclear war" but I don't think it's actually very illuminating. Not that my hopes are very high for an illuminating discussion to arise between you and TLoA right this moment but idk, at this moment on this topic I really hate the conversation going this way. It’s precisely because it’s so important to avoid it that we can trust nations to act rationally when deciding what their red lines are. They’re weapons of last resort for when backs are against the wall, no rational actor would risk a nuclear exchange for anything less. Even dictators must act rationally, they are dependent upon a group of strongmen who have no desire to die. Looking at previous examples is worthwhile to establish the validity of that thesis. Nuclear powers do not engage in nuclear exchanges over conventional exchanges that do not threaten the nation. They just don’t. There is no reason to think the airspace over Ukraine is any different than mountainsides in Kashmir in that regard. Russia wasn’t threatened by not controlling that airspace a week ago, it logically cannot be an existential threat that Putin, plus all the people he relies upon, are eager to die for.
Sure, go ahead and talk about previous examples to try to understand the underlying dynamics. I’m not convinced your no fly zone wouldn’t ultimately be a much smaller escalation than this SWIFT stuff anyway. I think you might be underestimating the degree to which the Russian government might view this conflict as existential, but even if they do it’s not obvious that after sending weapons to their opponent and crashing their economy and cursing their names across the globe, we should view a no fly zone as a beyond-the-pale escalation.
But you must understand that to enumerate how best to avoid a disaster that has never happened before, “this kind of thing hasn’t ever caused it before so we know that’s safe” isn’t going to work. Frequentist probability is fundamentally incapable of making predictions about an unprecedented event.
|
On February 27 2022 15:08 Starlightsun wrote:
It's quite possible that Putin does see losing this war as an existential threat to himself at least. All the people he has killed, imprisoned or intimidated to stay in power... He is probably a dead man if he doesn't keep his grip on power.
Yup.
I think that this is a strong possibility. And I also think it's something of a possibility Putin is enough of a selfish monster that if he saw certain failure here and had a strong enough provocation (like NATO shooting russian down russian vehicles) he'd be willing to go nuclear.
Can't be certain of any of this, but Kwark's idea of risking fucking nuclear war on the certainty of his assumptions about Putin's willingness to take that sort of thing and de-escalate when the man is (1) very old and paranoid and (2) trying to go full hitler - is madness.
Given how much of the decision making about this is coming from Putin as an individual rather than Russia as a state, it's especially scary. The preference for survival and de-escalation is a much more stable and consistent feature of large groups than it is of single individuals.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 15:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:kwark your idea that because weve never experienced nuclear war before we should assume we can trust everyone to not start a nuclear war in future is beyond stupid. by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. you dont even realise that the argument youre actually making is that because you threw 20 coins in the air and they all landed on tails, the next coin you throw cannot be heads.
You misunderstand. There are multiple people involved in a decision to cause a nuclear war. I used 20 as an example. The assumption that at least 1 of 20 of them will be sane is more valid than the assumption that exactly 0 of 20 will be. I am not saying that 20 coins landing on tails makes the 21st more likely. I am saying that it is more likely that there is at least one sane person in a room of 20 people than exactly 0 sane people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
