|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 22 2022 01:19 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 00:31 Ghanburighan wrote:
You don't address my points. You either ignore them, or you strawman them, as I've shown before. Proof? I am asking because it was not my intention to do so and I did assume that I addressed your points. I am genuinely trying to discuss things properly with you, but you always give me the impression of just talking down to me, just like here. You throw out a claim and I have nothing to check, I don't get sources, if I give sources they get ignored and as a bonus I get insulted every now and then... What am I supposed to do here? And ignoring points... come on, given that I had to force you to acknowledge my points and sources multiple times now this is pretty rich. Show nested quote +
Like here where you attribute to me the argument that Leopards are 'THE' solution and arguing against that while I've explained why any tanks are useful, something you quote in the same message, for crying out loud. So, perhaps the 'hostility' is directed at how disrespectful your posts are.
I assume the irony of you calling people disrespectful is lost on you... But for what it is worth, if you felt disrespected by me in that post I genuinely apologize. The quote does have you claiming they make the most sense though, which is why I where my assumption came from... Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case clearing that up rather than once again trying to talk down would be a great way to help me understand you and your reasoning. Show nested quote +
Also, the debate is framed by reality, not by TL. We can discuss the merits of Leopards VS Ambrams all we want, but Ukraine needs everything they can get. And they'll get it too.
And I discussed the merits of getting leopards in sufficient numbers under realistic assumptions. Show nested quote +
And, no, we don't need to pressure the US to give Abrams, they are the ones pushing for tanks to be sent and are preparing to send Abrams as we speak. In fact, they're delayed by the Ramstein format imposed on them by DE and FR. This was all posted with references by me in the thread days ago. So, instead of asking for references, read the ones I post.
So... you don't want ukraine to have more tanks of a single kind and ease maintenance and logistics? I know you don't, but that is what this looks like. Why not direct your efforts at telling people how to get more abrahams? Why the insistance on leopards when getting them in any number seems so unlikely? Also I don't live in this thread, I can miss stuff. People make mistakes. Show nested quote +Instead, you seem to be posting the DE position over and over, which amounts to: let's do as little of what UA asks as possible (and then cave to pressure, send the stuff anyway, but get no credit for it.) No I have not. I have been advocating for germany to help in the best ways possible without ignoring reality since way back. You once again attack me for wanting the same as you essentially, but in different ways... You also find me criticising germany in this thread and questioning its decisions. But I am just not a zealot and like to stick to reality. I too am not happy with some of the token level support germany has given, but I also know they have made sizeable contributions as well, so I don't feel the need to act like they are doing nothing. And this type of shit is exactly what I believe will only lead to more token contributions. I believe a sizeable contribution of leopards that balances out their costs is too unlikely, hence I rather have those efforts be spend on something more effective. Or to phrase it in a more asshole way: I like to help rather than pretending to help. And to beat the old drum, I would like you to be more charitable to the people you talk to in here because I get the impression you assume everyone who disagrees with you is either clueless or lying... and while I can understand hostility towards the latter, the former can be greatly addressed by sources and, once again, not being so damn hostile to everyone. Unless of course you care more about being seen as being correct than actually being correct, or convincing people of your ideas.
You clearly handed me an olive branch, so I'll accept your apology and provide one in return: I never intended to insult you, and if I did so inadvertently, I genuinely apologize for doing so. In fact, I try to be a stickler about my use of terminology, and pejorative statements shouldn't be allowed. Hence my annoyance at the liberties some posters take with how they describe me. I find it repulsive language.
As for talking down to you, it's probably true. It stems from two things: a) I write most of my messages here from my phone in between meetings, b) I live in the past here on TL, I often see what's going to happen a few days in advance (not on the front, nobody who doesn't need to know should have that info) because I'm in the Brussels NATO bubble. So, if you'd just excuse me on that front because I honestly don't have time to dedicate any more time to fine-tuning these messages.
Now, let's get back to the tanks. You're quite perceptive regarding the fact that what I'm pushing for is not the optimal solution. As you put it: "you don't want Ukraine to have more tanks of a single kind and ease maintenance and logistics", "Why the insistence on leopards when getting them in any number seems so unlikely?." Simply put, it's because I see the politics behind closed doors and I hear what the engineers are saying. If Western Europe started demanding US send hundreds of tanks, while they provide nothing of the kind, there's a chance it would crumble the unity of the allies, because it's seen (rightfully so, in my mind) as not taking responsibility for one's backyard. (There's already so much bickering between some large nations.) The US has remained wonderfully bipartisan on the issue despite the midterms, but in politics, one bad move can destroy everything. Especially as the US is providing certain capabilities which Europe cannot already (HIMARS, intelligence, etc). Secondly, the engineers say that it's difficult to send many tanks no matter how you do it, but in practice doable. So having multiple types of tanks, (like UA already manages their own, captured, and upgraded ex-NATO member country tanks) and multiple sources just amounts to getting more tanks in the field faster (1 Leopard + 1 Abrams = 2 tanks). And make no mistake, there is a window of opportunity for UA now, but there will come a time when it cannot conduct successful counter-offensives without something changing. And much will hinge on how much UA manages to achieve in this window.
P.S. The DW article posted by StealthBlue is actually a great summary of what has been going on in the past few days, minus what the US has been doing.
|
On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
Just pointing out that we'd have quite a bit of warning. Western countries monitor whether Russia actually goes into higher nuclear readiness or not. Despite Putin saying RU forces went into higher readiness in February after the invasion, there were no signs (there's a tweet about in the thread somewhere). This remains the case.
So, before you start worrying about RU nukes, watch for news about factual evidence of RU starting the process of using nuclear weapons.
|
On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike.
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
I dunnu, it's just kind of vertigo inducing to think about individual people having so much power over the world ending or not.
Oh and off-topic side note you might appreciate. I realized a few months ago that von Neumann, Wigner, and Teller all went to the same effing high school. Pre-war Budapest must have been really cool place.
On September 22 2022 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
How long does it take an ICBM to reach Berlin from Russia? And how long does it take for the UK and France to recognise its going for Berlin and not them? "I'm not attacking you, I am attacking your neighbour" requires your neighbour from being able to tell the difference before he attacks you back.
No need for ICBMs I think. Russia has normal cruise missiles with nukes on them in Kalinigrad. Dont think they even reach as far as Paris. And even if they do they are pretty slow compared to ICMBs - it would be obvious.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a Nash Equilibrium strategy, which you seem to lack understanding of. Retaliating to a limited nuclear strike with a total nuclear war would be completely devastating even to the countries not directly involved.
Therefore this strategy is strongly dominated by almost any other responce - thus a strategic military doctrine based on a presumptive full-scale nuclear is simply not credible - so it wouldn't be able to keep anyone from trying.
Luckily, there are more credible options for retaliating a limited nuke (like with another limited nuke), which for ~70 years has kept the world from annihilation
|
Wouldn't matter. The moment fallout touches the border of say Poland, Article 5 is pushed.
Also this seems more of getting rid of opposition that securing the front.
|
On September 22 2022 06:00 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike. Mutually Assured Destruction is a Nash Equilibrium strategy, which you seem to lack understanding of. Retaliating to a limited nuclear strike with a total nuclear war would be completely devastating even to the countries not directly involved. Therefore this strategy is strongly dominated by almost any other responce - thus a strategic military doctrine based on a presumptive full-scale nuclear is simply not credible - so it wouldn't be able to keep anyone from trying. Luckily, there are more credible options for retaliating a limited nuke (like with another limited nuke), which for ~70 years has kept the world from annihilation
i.e. Biden could credibly chose to delete st Petersburg in return for Warsaw and dare Putin to continue?
That's also what my FIL said when I raised this question a few months ago. It's believable enough I guess.Or at least I like the idea of not dying.
|
Wish I could add more to the discussion at the moment, but this is a very bleak day in a seemingly endless series of bleak days for the world.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On September 22 2022 06:11 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 06:00 a_ch wrote:On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike. Mutually Assured Destruction is a Nash Equilibrium strategy, which you seem to lack understanding of. Retaliating to a limited nuclear strike with a total nuclear war would be completely devastating even to the countries not directly involved. Therefore this strategy is strongly dominated by almost any other responce - thus a strategic military doctrine based on a presumptive full-scale nuclear is simply not credible - so it wouldn't be able to keep anyone from trying. Luckily, there are more credible options for retaliating a limited nuke (like with another limited nuke), which for ~70 years has kept the world from annihilation i.e. Biden could credibly chose to delete st Petersburg in return for Warsaw and dare Putin to continue? That's also what my FIL said when I raised this question a few months ago. It's believable enough I guess.Or at least I like the idea of not dying.
Yes, sort of. There is a very thin line between dealing too big damage and spiraling into a total war, and doing too little, but the idea is like that
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On September 22 2022 06:13 plasmidghost wrote:
Wish I could add more to the discussion at the moment, but this is a very bleak day in a seemingly endless series of bleak days for the world.
some good news is that a large pack of POW has recently been exchanged, including even Azov leaders. This is a good step towards some deescalation
|
Speaking of Azov, just recently it was reported that Azovstal defenders were exchanged for russian POWs! That's a great news!
On September 22 2022 03:44 npnl19 wrote:Show nested quote +They want you to talk about patches while their masters are bombing train stations and shopping centers. While Ukraine folks were bombing Donbass for 8 years, massacre people in Bucha, etc. (white patches etc.) And i guess news from certain sources are banned in your places, while i have access to your BBC CNN etc. nice democracy and freedom. Certainly i support that. lol. but im not the one who built walls. whatever mate, im out. those who interested in truth will google etc. and find out. it took me time myself, but at least well.. i have a clearer picture.
Oh jesus, stop this clownfiesta! But don't forget to take a pack of sunflower seeds, fresh ones preferably, cause it's tastier!
|
|
|
I wonder what happens if they do conduct the referendums but all regions will be against becoming part of Russia. Has this even crossed Putin's mind?
I mean, even the puppet governments there must see that by this point something must've gone terribly wrong as we're 7 months into the war and Russians seem to be losing more and more ground.
|
On September 22 2022 06:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder what happens if they do conduct the referendums but all regions will be against becoming part of Russia. Has this even crossed Putin's mind?
I mean, even the puppet governments there must see that by this point something must've gone terribly wrong as we're 7 months into the war and Russians seem to be losing more and more ground.
Huh? They won't actually count any votes. They will just make up some bullshit results, as usual.
|
On September 22 2022 06:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder what happens if they do conduct the referendums but all regions will be against becoming part of Russia. Has this even crossed Putin's mind?
I mean, even the puppet governments there must see that by this point something must've gone terribly wrong as we're 7 months into the war and Russians seem to be losing more and more ground. If you honestly think these referenda will not be rigged to hell and back with 160% turnout voting 114% in favour of joining I have a bridge to sell you.
|
United States41983 Posts
On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike. The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked. All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA. I dunnu, it's just kind of vertigo inducing to think about individual people having so much power over the world ending or not. Oh and off-topic side note you might appreciate. I realized a few months ago that von Neumann, Wigner, and Teller all went to the same effing high school. Pre-war Budapest must have been really cool place. Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
How long does it take an ICBM to reach Berlin from Russia? And how long does it take for the UK and France to recognise its going for Berlin and not them? "I'm not attacking you, I am attacking your neighbour" requires your neighbour from being able to tell the difference before he attacks you back. No need for ICBMs I think. Russia has normal cruise missiles with nukes on them in Kalinigrad. Dont think they even reach as far as Paris. And even if they do they are pretty slow compared to ICMBs - it would be obvious.
It doesn’t matter who they’re aimed at. You can’t afford to not immediately and absolutely obliterate anyone prepared to use nukes against anyone. The risk profile of not doing it gets too high.
You don't first strike people because of the belief that they won't use nukes. If they use nukes against anyone then the analysis changes, they're willing to use nukes and therefore it is game theory optimal to nuke them and they know it's game theory optimal for you to nuke them so they're rationally going to want to nuke you. Normally you say "yeah, but even if it's game theory optimal for them to nuke us they won't actually do it" because you're dealing with nations that don't actually do it. Once someone actually does it you have to treat them as someone who will actually do it.
|
On September 22 2022 06:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder what happens if they do conduct the referendums but all regions will be against becoming part of Russia. Has this even crossed Putin's mind?
I mean, even the puppet governments there must see that by this point something must've gone terribly wrong as we're 7 months into the war and Russians seem to be losing more and more ground.
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
Stalin in 1923 according to Boris Bazhanov
The democratic process in Russia haven't changed much in the last 100 years.
|
United States41983 Posts
On September 22 2022 06:19 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 06:11 KlaCkoN wrote:On September 22 2022 06:00 a_ch wrote:On September 22 2022 05:26 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 05:06 KlaCkoN wrote:
What do people here think would happen if Putin decides he is tired of the west sending heaps of free weapons and intel to Ukraine and decides to delete say Berlin or Warsaw from the map to make a point?
Personally I dont believe for a second that either France or the UK would enter a nuclear war with Russia on their own no matter what any treaties say.
Meaning it would come down to Biden and only Biden. No council, no votes, just an old man deciding whether to end the world because of principle or not. It's a somewhat dark thought I guess, but I honestly wonder if he would decide to sacrifice his grandchildren (and his country) to avenge a bunch of random germans.
NATO missiles would be flying before Russia finished fueling theirs. Once you hit the point of no return the best shot is to return fire immediately and in full force. Noted mega genius Von Neumann wrote a lot about game theory with regard to MAD and it basically comes down to “if war seems possible then nukes are possible and if nukes are possible then the best option is to do a first strike and so you should first strike and they know you should first strike so they should definitely first strike before you first strike and so you know they’re going to immediately go to nukes so why haven’t you launched your nukes yet”. The only hope is that everyone irrationally overlooks the obvious need to do a first strike and trusts that everyone else doesn’t want to kill millions. You can do the ethical irrational thing as long as you have a reasonable level of hope that everyone else does. The moment Putin indicates that he’s willing to use nukes (and not just bullshitting) you’re on the game theory loop that you must use yours first. It doesn’t matter if he targets Berlin or Boston, it matters that he’s willing to use them. If he’s willing to use them you must first strike. Mutually Assured Destruction is a Nash Equilibrium strategy, which you seem to lack understanding of. Retaliating to a limited nuclear strike with a total nuclear war would be completely devastating even to the countries not directly involved. Therefore this strategy is strongly dominated by almost any other responce - thus a strategic military doctrine based on a presumptive full-scale nuclear is simply not credible - so it wouldn't be able to keep anyone from trying. Luckily, there are more credible options for retaliating a limited nuke (like with another limited nuke), which for ~70 years has kept the world from annihilation i.e. Biden could credibly chose to delete st Petersburg in return for Warsaw and dare Putin to continue? That's also what my FIL said when I raised this question a few months ago. It's believable enough I guess.Or at least I like the idea of not dying. Yes, sort of. There is a very thin line between dealing too big damage and spiraling into a total war, and doing too little, but the idea is like that
This is nonsense. You don't nuke a major city as a proportional response and hope that they'll learn their lesson. And if you're Russia and you see the US launch nukes at a major city you don't sit and wait in the hope that it'll just be one, you must respond. And if you're the US you don't assume that Russia will sit and wait to see if it's an attempted first strike or a punitive vaporization of just one major city because you know that they must respond as if it's a first strike.
If you nuclear you go hard. It's why going nuclear is an expression. You can't go half nuclear on someone.
|
To alleviate people's fears of complete nuclear devastation a bit: in chess there's a concept called a "threat", and in poker there's a concept called the "bluff" (connected to a bet).
Putin is using a threat of sending nukes supported by the actual presence of nukes. But others don't know if his threat is a bluff or not, because they haven't called his bet. He could either choose to deliver on his promise (to send nukes) or he could choose not to. As long as he doesn't reveal his cards (sends nukes) and as long as others don't call his bet (by sending troops or attacking on Russian soil), they'll never know if his threat is real or a bluff, because his cards will never be revealed.
The same goes the other way around. Others are threatening nukes against Russia. Putin doesn't know if they're bluffing. As long as Putin doesn't call their bet (by sending nukes) he'll never know if they're bluffing or not.
Because of the combined power of a threat and a bluff, the true outcome is never revealed until either side calls the others side's bet.
In the case of nukes this creates a stalemate situation, because the cost of calling the bet and being wrong is too high. It'd be like betting all of your lifetime possession at a very high risk of self-destruction for a comparatively small return of an unknown chance of winning the war. You can see how, mathematically, it makes no sense for either side to send nukes at any given time, and this stands in complete contradiction to the proposed Nash Equilibrium.
The obvious question arises: knowing that it makes no sense for either side to send nukes, shouldn't that incentivize both sides to send nukes, knowing that the other side isn't going to send nukes?
The answer is a very clear "no". Why is that? Because nobody knows the true odds of nuclear retaliation. Every side has a different idea of what the other sides consider to be an acceptable risk and level of response. This uncertainty, due to the stakes being so high, makes a first strike from any side absolutely impossible, unless their aim is actually that of suicidal rage: to self-destruct while also bringing as much destruction to the world as possible.
But this isn't the whole problem. Putin is not the one pressing the button, he's only the one giving the order. He has a long list of people to agree with his decision before even a single nuke can be sent. Due to the aforementioned problem of threats and bluffs with extremely unreasonably high stakes, this creates a swiss cheese scenario where Putin has to get extremely lucky sending a single message through a stack of swiss chesse slices until it comes out at the end. Too many people (slices of swiss cheese) will stand in his way blocking his nuclear order with varying degrees of probability per person.
This also means that MAD isn't even guaranteed at all, even if a nuke was sent flying. The other side may decide that the risk of MAD is too great and not actually send any retaliation. We actually know of a historic example of this where the last person to press the button was not sure enough of their decision despite hearing positive confirmation of a nuclear attack, and they refused the order to retaliate. Turns out they were right and the alarm of an attack was false.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 22 2022 03:05 kornetka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 02:47 npnl19 wrote:
I hope you guys, have good reasons to justify nazi insignia (but there is none), or maybe just blindly follow your news agenda.
You know, life,s been great, except it sucks now for everyone who has to go to war, protecting people of Donbass, and thanx your western leaders for that. Expected more from SC community. Anyway. GLHF I am confused - I don't think anyone here justifies the Z sign? Ardias - could you share how the older people you know (your parents / grandparents / inlaws / etc) reacted to the news of mobilization? Are they surprised? Are they aware that its wording seems to indicate the 'partial' is only in the name?
My parents (and parents of my friends, whom I talked to) are worried of course. Had to explain to my folks that I'm far back in line to be drafted, though they are still worried, cause it's not clear how long this conflict will last, hence not clear how long the draft will be going.
And I believe everyone was surprised about it, though, to be fair, it was clear that if Russia would want to continue the offensive, it would need much more troops. But Putin's words on SCO summit seemed to indicate that he is trying to arrange some kind of peace deal, so events of past few days came down as a big surprise.
Had a talk with my friends at a pub about this stuff yesterday, discussing what to do, how to prepare etc. Nobody is really eager to be drafted, but in the choice between prison or draft 5 of the 8 will choose the latter. I guess it's kinda how it worked in every country throughout XX century, who were drafting for their offensive wars.
|
On September 22 2022 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 02:47 npnl19 wrote:
I hope you guys, have good reasons to justify nazi insignia (but there is none), or maybe just blindly follow your news agenda.
You know, life,s been great, except it sucks now for everyone who has to go to war, protecting people of Donbass, and thanx your western leaders for that. Expected more from SC community. Anyway. GLHF Lol How can you believe such nonsense. Are you a child?
Really. Now we need to tell mods to
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
