|
Discussion of nuclear weapons is usually in regards to proliferation, or a potential nuclear danger posed by rogue states like Iran or North Korea. Still relatively undiscussed is the potential for nuclear war between the US and Russia, which I suppose is still considered somewhat of a dead issue, at least in the popular imagination, since the end of the cold war and a reduction in stockpiles. And yet, there's still enough weapons to destroy civilization, if not cause human extinction, and a risk they'll be used, particularly by accident. Here's a list of times World War III was narrowly avoided. Also, this article is a good primer on the risk of accidental nuclear war, particularly in regard to our "launch-at-warning" Minuteman system. To get a bit conjectural, I fear that the risk of an accident leading to a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is rising sharply. Trump may act friendly (for now, he has a history of turning against former friends on a dime) toward Putin, but the rest of the government, given the allegations of hacking, a compromised election, and blackmail, is decidedly more hostile. Russia's intervention in Eastern Europe and Syria lead to more risks of confrontation with the west. Even as "unhinged" as Trump seems, I don't think he'd want to launch a first strike, and he could be talked out of it even if he did. But in the midst of a crisis, for which there's now more risk than ever, combined with a false positive of a launch, what happens? In the "Norwegian Rocket" incident of 1995, Yeltsin actually opened up his nuclear football, the only time a head of state has ever done so. He decided to ignore what looked like an impending attack, and likely because he figured there was just no reason the US would be attacking, especially at that point in time. Would Trump do the same, if it looked like war was coming anyway? Would Putin ignore the warning, given the perception of Trump's irrationality? Any thoughts on this? Are these fears overblown or understated?
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 14, 2024 01:35 |
|
The fears are definitely understated, but for now under Trump, a nuclear exchange with China is probably more likely.
|
![]() |
|
Why would you nuke one of your biggest trading partners?
|
![]() |
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Why would you nuke one of your biggest trading partners?
|
![]() |
|
My main fear is Putin somehow losing his grip on power, leading to him lashing out at every one of his perceived enemies as he goes down. He seems the type that would burn the world to the ground out of spite. Trump as well, but to a slightly lesser degree (that and a general would just put one in the back of his head before a tantrum at the football could end the world).
|
![]() |
|
The most likely thing in the next 4 years is the use of some hyper specific tactical nuke like a nuclear bunker buster against a terrorist in a cave and then everyone going "oh geez" a lot and it making the world a shittier and less secure place but not actually directly lead to any sort of nuclear holocaust directly.
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:The fears are definitely understated, but for now under Trump, a nuclear exchange with China is probably more likely. Nah, I don't think so. Trump uses a lot of bluster toward China, but there's really no indication it means anything concrete. A warning of incoming missiles from China, I think, would be easily ignored. Their nukes are probably not aimed at us, and ours not at them. They're aimed at Russia instead. In an institutional sense, nothing really changed after the cold war.
|
![]() |
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:To get a bit conjectural, I fear that the risk of an accident leading to a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is rising sharply. Trump may act friendly (for now, he has a history of turning against former friends on a dime) toward Putin, but the rest of the government, given the allegations of hacking, a compromised election, and blackmail, is decidedly more hostile. Russia's intervention in Eastern Europe and Syria lead to more risks of confrontation with the west. I feel bad typing this, but I think accidental nuclear war along the lines of this scenario is much less likely under Trump than under Clinton. I'd be more worried that the threshold past which the West will go to war was murky before Trump and is now decidedly more so. Does NATO still work in a world with Trump, Le Pen and a Brexiting UK? If the answer is "yes, but everybody believes it does not", then we might be heading into a world that's very dangerous indeed. On a completely different note, I think the lessons of the Norwegian Rocket Incident are quite different to the ones you've drawn here. I think it means that we should always be worried about nuclear war, because it remains a possibility even in times where there are no international tensions to speak of in the world. I also think it's an important illustration of how we live in a reality where human civilisation can end in non-narrative and absurd ways— your post has some scenarios you've thought of where a nuclear war can happen, but "everyone dies because of the Russian postal system and some research around auroras" is something nobody would come up with that almost happened anyway. "MAD means we can die for reasons that are unintuitive and pathetic" is a point I feel humanity has singularly failed to appreciate, and I worry it's one that will end up killing us all. vegetables fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 19, 2017 |
![]() |
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Nah, I don't think so. Trump uses a lot of bluster toward China, but there's really no indication it means anything concrete. A warning of incoming missiles from China, I think, would be easily ignored. Their nukes are probably not aimed at us, and ours not at them. They're aimed at Russia instead. In an institutional sense, nothing really changed after the cold war.
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:That could escalate into a nuclear exchange in a number of ways. China isn't going to do poo poo but wave the flag and maybe crash into a surveillance plane or two. Even the looniest of Chinese nationalists know a nuclear exchange with the US would be the end of Chinese Communism and likely of China as a self-governing state.
|
![]() |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The most likely thing in the next 4 years is the use of some hyper specific tactical nuke like a nuclear bunker buster against a terrorist in a cave and then everyone going "oh geez" a lot and it making the world a shittier and less secure place but not actually directly lead to any sort of nuclear holocaust directly. honestly thats my guess. trump will get pissed enough about isis or whatever new group thats birthed in the next several years and nuke a city they are in. maybe he will use it in an ISIS held city. Chomskyan posted:Where a nuke is "aimed" can be changed in milliseconds so it's a moot point. After Trump's call to Taiwan and Tillerson's suggestion of blockading China's islands in the SCS, there seems to be a definite chance for military confrontation. That could escalate into a nuclear exchange in a number of ways. true. i think our relationship will do a piss take with china while trump sucks Putin cock and lets him gently caress with Europe. that being said, i doubt we will have nuclear war with china.
|
![]() |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is ridiculous fear-mongering.
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:You're making the mistake of thinking that the leaders of China and the US will act rationally, even under high pressure and tight time constraints. Nukes take about 15-30 minutes to reach their target by missile. The time for determining if a launch detection is a false alarm or not, and deciding whether to launch a second strike or not will be less. MAD depends on human beings making rational decisions every time such a situation arises. So frankly, if you're not worried about nukes you're probably just ignorant of how these systems work.
|
![]() |
|
China has the capability to destroy the US west coast, more than enough to achieve the deterrent effect. Obviously both sides maintain systems that will actually launch nukes in retaliation to a first strike, otherwise the deterrent would be useless, so you're wrong to assume the Chinese wouldn't launch. Also it's not just China, the US could also make the first launch in response to a false alarm.
|
![]() |
The biggest risk is one of simple mistake and confusion.
|
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:China has the capability to destroy the US west coast, more than enough to achieve the deterrent effect. Obviously both sides maintain systems that will actually launch nukes in retaliation to a first strike, otherwise the deterrent would be useless, so you're wrong to assume the Chinese wouldn't launch. Also it's not just China, the US could also make the first launch in response to a false alarm. This isn't how nuclear strategy works. MAD is an equilibrium that can easily be disrupted if there is ever a circumstance where one side thinks that they can win a nuclear war with a first strike that disables the enemy's ability to retaliate. You're only thinking about China's capabilities in the context of a Chinese first strike when China's second strike capability is virtually nonexistent. This is why arms treaties in the Cold War focused very heavily on limiting defenses rather than the total number of nuclear warheads. It was to ensure that neither side could "win" a nuclear exchange with a knockout first strike on their adversaries missile sites. Right now, in the context of nuclear war strategy, the US could absolutely defeat China with minimal to non-existant damage to itself with a well executed first strike. And no, me explaining this doesn't mean I want a nuclear war. But nuclear war strategy is in fact a thing that is more complex than "fire ze missiles"
|
![]() |
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Discussion of nuclear weapons is usually in regards to proliferation, or a potential nuclear danger posed by rogue states like Iran or North Korea. Still relatively undiscussed is the potential for nuclear war between the US and Russia, which I suppose is still considered somewhat of a dead issue, at least in the popular imagination, since the end of the cold war and a reduction in stockpiles. And yet, there's still enough weapons to destroy civilization, if not cause human extinction, and a risk they'll be used, particularly by accident. Nuclear war was a serious threat during the cold war. There were two large hostile armies stationed in Europe and a lot of conflict zones around the world where both sides fought each other by proxy. In case of open war, there was also a clear chain of escalation that would have led to a guaranteed nuclear exchange between both sides. That's why that time was so terrifying, nuclear war was a real possibility on everyone's mind. None of this is the case today. Why would there be a nuclear exchange between Russia and the USA today? What would any side gain from this? ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Nuclear war was a serious threat during the cold war. There were two large hostile armies stationed in Europe and a lot of conflict zones around the world where both sides fought each other by proxy. In case of open war, there was also a clear chain of escalation that would have led to a guaranteed nuclear exchange between both sides. That's why that time was so terrifying, nuclear war was a real possibility on everyone's mind. Ditto with China. Someone describe the obvious chain of escalation that would lead to a Sino-American nuclear exchange that doesn't hinge on someone involved being The Joker IRL
|
![]() |
|
Trump Could Face a Nuclear Decision Soonquote:Trump’s deal-making talent may prove wanting, however as congressional Republicans adamantly support missile defenses and comprehensive modernization of U.S. nuclear strike forces. Other factors could also thwart an overture to Russia, including intentional acts or accidents between rival fighter aircraft that result in loss of life, triggering further escalation of tensions that could ultimately spin out of control. A conventional conflict could ensue and precipitate a nuclear response, probably by Russia, which relies much more on nuclear weapons than does the United States, but who knows how an unpredictable commander in chief who consults mainly with himself might behave. quote:Imagine the following:
|
![]() |
|
It may be simple sounding, but the only way I could see any countries that have them getting into a nuclear exchange...is some sort of global ecological collapse that puts pressure on countries to invade others that happen to be protected by mutual defense treaties. Donald Trump is not going to push the proverbial button just because some State actor breaks our balls. I mean, he's a herb, but give him some credit.
|
![]() |
|
What is hair-trigger alert?quote:“Hair-trigger alert” is a U.S. military policy that enables the rapid launch of nuclear weapons. Missiles on hair-trigger alert are maintained in a ready-for-launch status, staffed by around-the-clock launch crews, and can be airborne in as few as ten minutes. China has the ability to move their nukes on to hair trigger as well, although it's unclear if they have.
|
![]() |
|
quote:That’s because there simply are no checks and balances on his authority, which is derived from the Constitution. There is no congressional or Supreme Court veto. And there would be no veto by anyone in the president’s circle of advisers or the military. Secretary of Defence needs to confirm the order and the cabinet can invoke the 25th amendment if Trump is clearly off his rocker. There may not be a specific nuclear weapons clause in the constitution but there are numerous mechanisms by which the President can be controlled that would also be applicable.
|
![]() |
|
South China Sea: China media warn US over 'confrontation'quote:Blocking China from islands it has built in contested waters would lead to "devastating confrontation", Chinese state media have warned. This kind of confrontation will increase tensions between the US and China, and increase the chance that a false alarm is misinterpreted as a first strike.
|
![]() |
|
I too take the state propaganda apparatus of an authoritarian regime at face value.
|
![]() |
|
Fojar38 posted:Secretary of Defence needs to confirm the order and the cabinet can invoke the 25th amendment if Trump is clearly off his rocker. There may not be a specific nuclear weapons clause in the constitution but there are numerous mechanisms by which the President can be controlled that would also be applicable.
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:Yes, I suppose the cabinet could literally carry out a coup. Very insightful as always. Yeah that's a much crazier scenario than Trump ordering a nuclear strike for no good reason against the wishes of literally everyone including his secretary of defense and everyone just shrugging and going "What're ya gonna do? He's President."
|
![]() |
|
Like there is a 100% chance that the news of Trump wanting to use nukes would reach Congress in that scenario.
|
![]() |
|
Fojar38 posted:Yeah that's a much crazier scenario than Trump ordering a nuclear strike for no good reason against the wishes of literally everyone including his secretary of defense and everyone just shrugging and going "What're ya gonna do? He's President." That's the delusion you have to live under for any of this nuclear war nonsense to make sense to you.
|
![]() |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Like George W Bush, Donald Trump is simultaneously a totally insane manbaby with absolutely no idea what he is doing and also a genius political manipulator who could secretly orchestrate a massive nationwide conspiracy. Well a lot of these scenarios play out in hours if not minutes. Like yeah if Trump is clearly jonesing for launching nukes at Pyongyang over the course of months it probably won't happen. If there's a semi-credible threat that materializes in hours who knows? It's more that the guy may be capable of absolutely loving a delicate situation that any other president would be able to resolve. Like, Kennedy and friends made tons of stupid decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis but they still managed to salvage things. Would Trump & Co perform better under similar circumstances? Hopefully we won't find out. I don't blame anyone for being concerned over this. It's just...still pretty unclear how unstable Trump is.
|
![]() |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Like George W Bush, Donald Trump is simultaneously a totally insane manbaby with absolutely no idea what he is doing and also a genius political manipulator who could secretly orchestrate a massive nationwide conspiracy. You don't have to be a genius manipulator when you're the kind of guy who staffs his cabinet with two-bit sycophants and people who are inevitably going to be replaced with two-bit sycophants once they go against your wishes. Also Trump is going to start a loving nuclear war with Russia in a fit of pique once he inevitably falls out with Putin over some real or imagined slight.
|
![]() |
|
Chomskyan posted:Yes, I suppose the cabinet could literally carry out a coup. Very insightful as always. It wouldn't be a member of his Cabinet. It'd likely be a member of the Joint Chiefs putting a round in the back of the madman's head and telling the silos to stand down. Anything less would be a violation of their oath.
|
![]() |
|
Talmonis posted:It wouldn't be a member of his Cabinet. It'd likely be a member of the Joint Chiefs putting a round in the back of the madman's head and telling the silos to stand down. Anything less would be a violation of their oath. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that the Joint Chiefs are running around with guns in their pockets in when they come to the White House, so this seems logistically improbable.
|
![]() |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Now correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that the Joint Chiefs are running around with guns in their pockets in when they come to the White House, so this seems logistically improbable. The guns they got up their sleeves are probably enough to defeat a 70 year old man in poor shape who is ordering them to end the world they live on in nuclear hellfire.
|
![]() |
|
Fojar38 posted:This isn't how nuclear strategy works. MAD is an equilibrium that can easily be disrupted if there is ever a circumstance where one side thinks that they can win a nuclear war with a first strike that disables the enemy's ability to retaliate. You're only thinking about China's capabilities in the context of a Chinese first strike when China's second strike capability is virtually nonexistent. yes. this is the important point. MAD only works when neither side can ensure they can destroy their enemy's second strike capabilities. I suspect China does not have the ability to destroy the US's second strike capability but the US does have the ability to destroy China's. In that case, if total war is imminent the correct choice from China is to use their nukes before they are destroyed by the US. This is a very bad outcome. Paradoxically, the world would be safer if China had more nukes to ensure that MAD is in play. The only hope is that if the US and China do get into a shooting war it's more like Korea or the Falkland Islands with a specific limited objective and less like the total war of WW1/WW2 where the goal is the destruction of the state.
|
![]() |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The guns they got up their sleeves are probably enough to defeat a 70 year old man in poor shape who is ordering them to end the world they live on in nuclear hellfire. They might have a spot of trouble with the Secret Service agents and/or Trump's private bodyguards, though. Furthermore I'm not even sure if Trump has to involve the JCS at all in order to nuke somebody, which puts a bit of a damper on the Tom Clancy scenario presented here.
|
![]() |
|
Fojar38 posted:Ditto with China. Someone describe the obvious chain of escalation that would lead to a Sino-American nuclear exchange that doesn't hinge on someone involved being The Joker IRL i'll play -Increasing agitation around the Taiwan issue leads to a cooling of relations between the USA and China -Trump/the GOP Congress decide to pass a harsh tariff, pushing China's fragile economy over the edge -Facing unrest at home, Chinese leadership becomes more outwardly aggressive towards its interests ala Putin -Tensions run high in the Taiwanese straight and someone fucks up and accidentally starts shooting -The war was started without specific aim and quickly escalates to something dangerous like "conquer Taiwan once and for all" -The US gets involved and Trump makes it clear that he will not tolerate the Chinese state to continue to exist in its current form -China begins losing and facing the threat of extinction decides to threaten use of its missiles on the US West Coast in an attempt to end the war -The US does not take this threat seriously -China makes good on its threat -Bye, bye West Coast -US Retaliatory strike (although whether this happens is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure the current administration wouldn't hesitate) Cerebral Bore posted:They might have a spot of trouble with the Secret Service agents and/or Trump's private bodyguards, though. i believe Sec Def has to confirm the order, however that's not a constitutional provision or anything so it's not much to rest on. ultimately requiring sec def to approve is pointless anyway since trump or any other president can just start firing sec defs and moving down the ladder until he finds someone willing to enforce the order. if trump really wanted to use nukes and sec def/the joint chiefs did not approve their only mechanism is a coup or congress taking immediate action to impeach and remove him from power. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 20, 2017 |
![]() |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:They might have a spot of trouble with the Secret Service agents and/or Trump's private bodyguards, though. Is trump a reaper? is he indoctrinating soldiers? Why would any of those people be in favor letting trump first strike russia and starting some weird random nuclear war?
|
![]() |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is trump a reaper? is he indoctrinating soldiers? Why would any of those people be in favor letting trump first strike russia and starting some weird random nuclear war? as we've never had a cabinet attempt a coup against a president it is unclear if the secret service/military would side with the coup or potus. testing that theory when we are under threat of a nuclear exchange is...unwise. if sec def or whoever tells trump they're not firing the missiles and he says "you're fired" and then is confronted with the full cabinet saying "no, you're fired" it's a really bad time to test whether the secret service/military follow trump's orders to "shoot the traitors" or the cabinet's order to "arrest and remove trump" axeil fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jan 20, 2017 |
![]() |
|
Nuclear chat seems to continually involve people arguing that systems designed to have no safeguards will have safeguards kick in if need be, but I'm not sure this is actually true. I think our thinking is constructed in a way to resist the idea nuclear war is possible – and to argue towards that belief in a post hoc way – but I'm not sure we necessarily do so in a logical way.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 14, 2024 01:35 |
|
vegetables posted:Nuclear chat seems to continually involve people arguing that systems designed to have no safeguards will have safeguards kick in if need be, but I'm not sure this is actually true. i mean, ultimately the safeguard we're talking about is one that exists at all times in all societies which is "palace coup". so long as there's organized leadership there's always a chance the king's council can oust the king. it is loving terrifying that is the only real safeguard though.
|
![]() |