|
What would Russia actually accomplish, militarily, by chucking a cruise missile or two at a NATO military base in Western Europe? Even with a tactical nuke on the end, a few missiles are not going to be militarily significant. Wrecking one base will be annoying to NATO, but hardly a show-stopper, and it's not like the US can't retaliate with missiles of their own. It doesn't really make sense, except as an hypothetical scenario crafted to theorize about what it would take to get NATO to use nukes.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
PederP posted:There's a huge difference between a tactical nuke and strategic nuke in that regards. Those are not the same - and detecting that incoming missiles are tactical nukes isn't easily done. If there's a cruise missile heading towards Rammstein base, is NATO going to assume it is a nuke? If Russia has overtly raised nuclear readiness levels, probably. If they haven't? Harder to say. The military industrial complex no longer has a war to milk, and here comes Nukes on Are Troops. That's probably the One Thing that could get all the red meat Fox watchers to thump their chests out and scream for blood. loving lol at demanding we hit the negotiating table at that point when we're already this side of (if not actually at) manufacturing consent, especially when the resounding conservative narrative is Biden Weak Man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What would Russia actually accomplish, militarily, by chucking a cruise missile or two at a NATO military base in Western Europe? Even with a tactical nuke on the end, a few missiles are not going to be militarily significant. Wrecking one base will be annoying to NATO, but hardly a show-stopper, and it's not like the US can't retaliate with missiles of their own. It doesn't really make sense, except as an hypothetical scenario crafted to theorize about what it would take to get NATO to use nukes. they accomplish plenty if it's in response to a conventional shooting war between nato and russia that russia is losing. if russia felt the conflict posed an existential threat, tactical nukes would probably make it impossible for nato to actually win, would demand an in-kind response from nato, and force a peaceful resolution that is much closer to russian terms than a full surrender. Volmarias posted:The military industrial complex no longer has a war to milk, and here comes Nukes on Are Troops. That's probably the One Thing that could get all the red meat Fox watchers to thump their chests out and scream for blood. loving lol at demanding we hit the negotiating table at that point when we're already this side of (if not actually at) manufacturing consent, especially when the resounding conservative narrative is Biden Weak Man. realistically i think the entire planet would piss its pants if anyone dropped a nuke
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
The world is not going to tolerate having a dictator point a gun at their head. Capitulating to Russian demands if they drop a nuke is ceding your sovereignty forever, because that gives them the power to control you if you won't respond in kind. Russia cannot get peace through nukes, large or small, it will just lock them into forever war if it doesn't immediately destroy modern civilization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:The world is not going to tolerate having a dictator point a gun at their head. Capitulating to Russian demands if they drop a nuke is ceding your sovereignty forever, because that gives them the power to control you if you won't respond in kind. Russia cannot get peace through nukes, large or small, it will just lock them into forever war if it doesn't immediately destroy modern civilization. Also, given the state of the Russian armed forces, they should probably also take into consideration that the US might not consider their deterrent fully functional given how dysfunctional their armed forces appear. The less credibly the Russian armed forces are, the more the balance shifts towards doing an immediate counter-force strike, in the hope of taking out so many nukes that the remaining functional nukes will batter and bruise but not destroy you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 07:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah. In fact, this should be made extremely clear, so MAD is preserved. That still sounds terrible. Freaking insanely awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 08:01
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:That still sounds terrible. Freaking insanely awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
I would love to see Russia mount a tactical nuclear warhead in a cruise missile, fire it at a NATO state and when the missile lands it's a dud. Doubly so if they shotgun out 5+ missiles and they are all duds. That would absolutely cap off my time on this hell world hell timeline
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
It's eerie to imagine SA during nuclear war. Imagine being one of the leftover goons after 2/3 of the site who live in cities are gone in the initial fireballs. What do you post? I'm not posting I'm incinerated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 10:30
|
|
|
Will my video games still work after nuclear war?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 11:03
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It's eerie to imagine SA during nuclear war. Imagine being one of the leftover goons after 2/3 of the site who live in cities are gone in the initial fireballs. What do you post? I'm not posting I'm incinerated. "Lol this owns"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
Hail SS-18 Satan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It's eerie to imagine SA during nuclear war. Imagine being one of the leftover goons after 2/3 of the site who live in cities are gone in the initial fireballs. What do you post? I'm not posting I'm incinerated. I'd be very surprised if the servers still exist, little lone have power or a network connection to anywhere. Or is Jeffery from YOPOLOS paying for the post-war nuclear protection package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Will my video games still work after nuclear war? Do all Steam games work in offline mode? If not, hope you have your Turok CDs around somewhere!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It's eerie to imagine SA during nuclear war. Imagine being one of the leftover goons after 2/3 of the site who live in cities are gone in the initial fireballs. What do you post? I'm not posting I'm incinerated. Tribute.webv except instead of 9/11 it's a nightmarish hell march of survivors making their way out of blasted hellscapes Volmarias fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I'd be very surprised if the servers still exist, little lone have power or a network connection to anywhere. Power might continue for a few days, and the internet backbone might still have basic functionality (it was originally designed to survive nukes, but things have changed), but yeah the servers would probably be ash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah. In fact, this should be made extremely clear, so MAD is preserved. the strategy of trying to win a nuclear war is obscenely stupid and bad. "battered and bruised" means tens of millions dead at absolute minimum for a war that does not represent an existential threat to the united states. the us would could preserve MAD by demonstrating its own willingness to use nuclear weapons (a like-for-like response) and then attempt a political settlement that prevents a total conflagration. that would be the rational response, at least. to even get to this point, there would probably be multiple warnings, signals, and red lines from moscow that the west would have to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Bremen posted:Power might continue for a few days, and the internet backbone might still have basic functionality (it was originally designed to survive nukes, but things have changed), but yeah the servers would probably be ash. all these posts... lost in time... like tears in rain
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Isn't SA now in the cloud? I thought that's what all the availability zones were for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the strategy of trying to win a nuclear war is obscenely stupid and bad. "battered and bruised" means tens of millions dead at absolute minimum for a war that does not represent an existential threat to the united states. the us would could preserve MAD by demonstrating its own willingness to use nuclear weapons (a like-for-like response) and then attempt a political settlement that prevents a total conflagration. that would be the rational response, at least. to even get to this point, there would probably be multiple warnings, signals, and red lines from moscow that the west would have to ignore. Who would you propose the US nuke in like-for-like response? Don't loving say the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:Who would you propose the US nuke in like-for-like response? well if russia nuked a bunch of nato bases or military units with tactical nuclear weapons, the us would respond by nuking russian bases and military units with tactical nuclear weapons. the key would be communicating exactly what you're doing and saying you're going no farther unless russia goes farther, and that you seek to end the war as soon as possible. and that is probably exactly what russia would expect the us to do, and largely what they'd be counting on. Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:42
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:Who would you propose the US nuke in like-for-like response? The senseless provocations of New Brunswick will no longer stand.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well if russia nuked a bunch of nato bases or military units with tactical nuclear weapons, the us would respond by nuking russian bases and military units with tactical nuclear weapons. the key would be communicating exactly what you're doing and saying you're going no farther unless russia goes farther, and that you seek to end the war as soon as possible. and that is probably exactly what russia would expect the us to do.  I'm... Not really sure this is how MAD works, on any level. Admittedly, despite some good effort from luminaries such as LeMay, we haven't exactly empirically tested what would happen if some sovereign nation or alliance thereof nuked another one with nuclear capability, but the whole idea of having nukes in the first place is that they're not meant to be used. That's why "tactical" nuclear weapons were such a boogaboo during the OG Cold War, because the idea of a limited nuclear exchange was actually against the interests of all parties involved, and even Reagan (sort of) understood this. Obviously no one rational wants a nuclear exchange, but if a rogue actor (which, according to the principles of MAD, any first-striker would be) started lobbing nukes around, there would have to be a response, but I'm not sure what makes you think there would not be a series of escalations, since the tit-for-tat-principle would dictate that whoever stops nuking first "loses" the exchange. And on top of that, even if by some miracle the POTUS up there managed to talk
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
I’ve read a couple of those declassified nuclear war game scenarios, and proportional response got sticky real fast. A common situation were the Russians nuking some carrier battle groups and NATO was in the awkward situation of not really having an equivalent target, especially given that land strikes will incur collateral damage. Another common setup was preemptive attacks on the other nations’s submarine fleet, which puts them in the very awkward “use or lose” position with their most reliable second strike capability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:
The scenario I'm talking about here would specifically be one where Russia and NATO are already in a shooting war, Russia is losing, and it views the war as an existential threat to its existence. It would wager that since winning the war is impossible, it could simultaneously render NATO forces unable to prosecute the war while also demonstrating that it is ready to engage in a full scale nuclear conflict without actually sparking that conflict. Russia would launch, say, ten nukes against NATO forces and count on them doing the same back to them then seeking a peace deal. MAD doesn't mean one nuke automatically leads to a full scale response, and that's why tactical nuclear weapons are so dangerous - tempting to use because you think you can control the outcome, but it's such an enormous gamble and incredibly dangerous. Obviously no one should actually do this but I'm just saying it's not an off the wall concept and it's why Russia has so many tactical weapons in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:MAD doesn't mean one nuke automatically leads to a full scale response, and that's why tactical nuclear weapons are so dangerous - tempting to use because you think you can control the outcome, but it's such an enormous gamble and incredibly dangerous. Obviously no one should actually do this but I'm just saying it's not an off the wall concept and it's why Russia has so many tactical weapons in the first place. You do realize what the acronym stands for, right? I honestly don't understand where this scenario is coming from, why would Russia assume that, in an "existential crisis", it could somehow defuse the situation with a limited strike, and why would it assume that NATO would not retaliate with equal or greater force, since it is known that (or assumed by MAD, whichever you prefer) NATO possesses this capability? Do you really think Vova and sleepy Joe would have a pleasant chat over the red phones about how many missiles they're shooting at the moment, like two guys playing chess via letter correspondence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
JB: Minuteman to...Moscow 3 *tap* VP: Tsar Bomba to Pennsylvania 1600. Checkmate, Joe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:You do realize what the acronym stands for, right? I honestly don't understand where this scenario is coming from, why would Russia assume that, in an "existential crisis", it could somehow defuse the situation with a limited strike, and why would it assume that NATO would not retaliate with equal or greater force, since it is known that (or assumed by MAD, whichever you prefer) NATO possesses this capability? it would assume that nato would respond with equal or at least similar force, because it knows that nato knows it has second-strike capability. a full-scale nuclear response would be suicide, whereas a limited strike would give all sides the possibility of de-escalation. which is why the strategy is called "escalate to de-escalate." while a tactical nuclear attack is a "bad idea," russia could decide it is preferable to total defeat. this is a very important concept for russian deterrence since it is totally outclassed in a conventional war after the dissolution of the soviet union. mad is the concept that one side can't initiate a first strike on the other side without being destroyed, which means that nato initiating a full-scale attack would be irrational even in response to a limited strike. it only comes into play if the other side is attempting to destroy your nuclear forces, which would necessitate launching your own weapons before they're destroyed. like, if tomorrow russia decided out of the blue to nuke a nato base in poland and did *nothing else*, what is the proper american response? like, imagine you are president. do you just go to the bunker and launch all the nukes? why? what would it that accomplish other than destroying the entirety of both sides? the rational response would be to make a similar like-for-like attack on russia and then seek de-escalation. there are obviously complications to this, such as "what if russia declares a like-for-like response will trigger a total nuclear war" or something to that effect, although then the united states could simply ignore them and put the ball back in their court. it is obviously an insane and very risky strategy for russia but that doesn't mean they wouldn't give it a shot if they thought the alternative was their destruction. quote:Do you really think Vova and sleepy Joe would have a pleasant chat over the red phones about how many missiles they're shooting at the moment, like two guys playing chess via letter correspondence? that is very much a potential scenario, albeit not pleasantly, if you are trying to respond without causing a total nuclear war. it seems absurd, but nuclear war logic is absurd in the first place. the last thing you want to do is launch a limited strike but have the other guy think it's the start of a full-scale attack. quote:Russia is modernizing extensively its nuclear forces to be able to “de-escalate a conflict” using a small number of strikes and, if necessary, launch a massive nuclear strike. Ongoing force modernization includes over a dozen new types of strategic delivery vehicles, and new precision low-yield nuclear weapons.3 A now declassified CIA report from 2000 links Russian nuclear doctrine to its new nuclear weapons development. “Moscow’s military doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons has been evolving and probably has served as the justification for the development of very low-yield, high-precision nuclear weapons.” 4 Russian journalists, including those writing for official news agencies, report that Russia has deployed some nuclear weapons with yields in the 50-200 ton range on its Bulava and Sineva submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).5 Russia is also reportedly developing low-collateral damage weapons. According to Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Retired) and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, “Russia has followed exactly the opposite course from the United States. It has focused on low-yield weapons research, design, testing, and production.” https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/february/escalate-de-escalate Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:You do realize what the acronym stands for, right? I honestly don't understand where this scenario is coming from, why would Russia assume that, in an "existential crisis", it could somehow defuse the situation with a limited strike, and why would it assume that NATO would not retaliate with equal or greater force, since it is known that (or assumed by MAD, whichever you prefer) NATO possesses this capability? Do you really think Vova and sleepy Joe would have a pleasant chat over the red phones about how many missiles they're shooting at the moment, like two guys playing chess via letter correspondence? You are correct that it's a dumb idea but Russia has been talking about an escalate to deescalate strategy for decades now where they would employ this exact strategy so just because we think it's unworkable doesn't mean it's not a thing they consider part of their toolbox.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:they accomplish plenty if it's in response to a conventional shooting war between nato and russia that russia is losing. if russia felt the conflict posed an existential threat, tactical nukes would probably make it impossible for nato to actually win, would demand an in-kind response from nato, and force a peaceful resolution that is much closer to russian terms than a full surrender. Concerned Citizen posted:The scenario I'm talking about here would specifically be one where Russia and NATO are already in a shooting war, Russia is losing, and it views the war as an existential threat to its existence. It would wager that since winning the war is impossible, it could simultaneously render NATO forces unable to prosecute the war while also demonstrating that it is ready to engage in a full scale nuclear conflict without actually sparking that conflict. Russia would launch, say, ten nukes against NATO forces and count on them doing the same back to them then seeking a peace deal. Would tactical nukes on military targets make it impossible for NATO to win? That might have been the case in the 70s, but in a world where Russia can't even quickly neutralize the Ukrainian Air Force, challenging the US to a battle of bombers and cruise missiles doesn't sound like a winning strategy. Overall, this sounds disturbingly similar to a number of fascist nations' thinking leading up to WWII - the assumption that if they perform a single powerful attack, an enemy with a much larger army will lose heart and sue for a peace favorable to the attacker. We all know how that actually turned out. If Russia decides that not only are they going to be the first ones to use WMDs, but also that they're going to reveal that willingness by popping off ten weapons of mass destruction over the heads of American ground forces as a surprise, then the American populace will become bloodthirstier than actual vampires. And since such a strike will neither end NATO's conventional superiority nor prevent America from responding with nuclear strikes of their own, it's unlikely that peace will be in anyone's response plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:You are correct that it's a dumb idea but Russia has been talking about an escalate to deescalate strategy for decades now where they would employ this exact strategy so just because we think it's unworkable doesn't mean it's not a thing they consider part of their toolbox. Right, but at that point we're outside the parameter space of MAD, and it's basically everyone winging it, so all bets are off anyway. I seem to be more concerned than the eponymous citizen about how that'd work out in real life, but then again I'm not responsible for anyone's nuclear arsenal.  Concerned Citizen posted:it would assume that nato would respond with equal or at least similar force, because it knows that nato knows it has second-strike capability. a full-scale nuclear response would be suicide, whereas a limited strike would give all sides the possibility of de-escalation. which is why the strategy is called "escalate to de-escalate." while a tactical nuclear attack is a "bad idea," russia could decide it is preferable to total defeat. this is a very important concept for russian deterrence since it is totally outclassed in a conventional war after the dissolution of the soviet union. I'm not sure how to engage with this confusion of ideas, to be honest. You seem to acknowledge in one paragraph that mutually assured destruction means what it says on the tin, but at the same time are arguing for solutions outside the confines of MAD. Which, well okay, if we are operating outside MAD, what makes you think that one or both sides in a nuclear exchange would consider a response of (relatively, I assume, I'm not sure how reliable estimates of collateral damage etc. could be made in timeframes of minutes) "a similar magnitude" to be the "reasonable" one, instead of going for the "rational" response that any state (or coalition) actor willing to use nuclear armaments has taken one step too far and their entire nuclear capability has to be nixed in the bud? The latter seems likely to evoke the MAD playbook response, and good night northern hemisphere technosphere I guess, but what is telling NATO forces that if they "only" nuke 5 Russian airfields like Russia just nuked 5 NATO airfields that the Russians won't escalate further, leading to the same end result? Not to mention that this scenario pre-supposes perfect coördination and discipline on all levels of both players' nuclear chain of command; if Russia actually had the "dead hand" system running, as depicted in Dr. Strangelove and possibly real life (!), how can NATO assume that "just" launching a couple of "tactical" nukes won't trigger the non-human MAD retaliation? I suppose a case could be made that the "rational" response to a nuclear attack outside the confines of MAD would be a devastating conventional assault instead, but this would also likely result in Russia escalating their nuclear strikes, and we're back to where we started. The entire concept of MAD fundamentally states that nuclear war must be made impossible to wage, via the threat of mutual destruction. As soon as we (or the Russians, in this case, evidently  ) begin looking at the conflict with a little nuking allowed, we are implicitly outside MAD. It seems bizarre to me to assume that a one-sided abdication of (essentially) agreed-upon balance wouldn't result in the other "player" attempting to re-level the playing field. No one wants a nuclear exchange, but no one wants to live on a globe with a rogue agent who seems willing to start said nuclear exchanges as if it weren't a potentially civilization-threatening action, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:that is very much a potential scenario, albeit not pleasantly, if you are trying to respond without causing a total nuclear war. it seems absurd, but nuclear war logic is absurd in the first place. the last thing you want to do is launch a limited strike but have the other guy think it's the start of a full-scale attack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The scenario I'm talking about here would specifically be one where Russia and NATO are already in a shooting war, Russia is losing, and it views the war as an existential threat to its existence. It would wager that since winning the war is impossible, it could simultaneously render NATO forces unable to prosecute the war while also demonstrating that it is ready to engage in a full scale nuclear conflict without actually sparking that conflict. Russia would launch, say, ten nukes against NATO forces and count on them doing the same back to them then seeking a peace deal. If Russia decides that not only are they going to be the first ones to use WMDs, but also that they're going to reveal that willingness by popping off ten weapons of mass destruction over the heads of American ground forces, then the American populace will become bloodthirstier than vampires. And since such a strike will neither end NATO's massive conventional superiority nor prevent America from responding with tactical nuclear airstrikes and cruise missiles of their own, they'll have plenty of means to get that blood. If Russian doctrine calls for NATO to immediately end the war in panic as soon as Russia vaporizes a few American troop formations in nuclear hellfire, well, that belongs on the Bad Ideas shelf right next to Japanese war plans circa November 1941.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Would tactical nukes on military targets make it impossible for NATO to win? That might have been the case in the 70s, but in a world where Russia can't even quickly neutralize the Ukrainian Air Force, challenging the US to a battle of bombers and cruise missiles doesn't sound like a winning strategy. well, i do not believe it is possible for either side to realistically wage a war when precision-guided low-yield nuclear weapons are being used. the losses would be so massive as to effectively make it pointless. russia, notably, has thousands of them and they would possess the ability to completely destroy attackers even if it was at great cost to themselves. it would therefore be attractive to the russians as an alternative to complete surrender. obviously, it is an insane escalation by russia and they would risk exactly what you described - massive retaliation by nato. that doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to take that gamble if the alternative, in their mind, is the destruction of the russian state. A Buttery Pastry posted:It is not rational for NATO to invade Russia, as it is plainly obvious the Russians would respond with nukes. Given this, it's entirely irrational for Russia to launch nukes "defensively" before that happens, because NATO would attempt to end the war diplomatically before that point. If they do do so, that means Russia is not behaving rationally. In that scenario, there is no reason to believe a limited strike will not be responded with more forcefully, leading eventually to a full exchange that will be more devastating than if you immediately escalate to just launching all your nukes. In that scenario, the use of nukes becomes solidly binary, with the choice either being not to use nukes or to attempt to destroy as much of Russia's nuclear capability as possible. you are correct that it is not rational for nato to invade russia. however, mad is predicated on the other side believing you are actually willing to strike the other guy. if nato did not believe the threat was credible and ignored russia's red lines and signals, the result would be limited nuclear strikes. russia *could* simply launch a full-scale attack, but why? that would result in their destruction. instead, they'd seek to gamble on a lesser attack and the west's desire to avoid an all-out war. Rappaport posted:I'm not sure how to engage with this confusion of ideas, to be honest. You seem to acknowledge in one paragraph that mutually assured destruction means what it says on the tin, but at the same time are arguing for solutions outside the confines of MAD. Which, well okay, if we are operating outside MAD, what makes you think that one or both sides in a nuclear exchange would consider a response of (relatively, I assume, I'm not sure how reliable estimates of collateral damage etc. could be made in timeframes of minutes) "a similar magnitude" to be the "reasonable" one, instead of going for the "rational" response that any state (or coalition) actor willing to use nuclear armaments has taken one step too far and their entire nuclear capability has to be nixed in the bud? The latter seems likely to evoke the MAD playbook response, and good night northern hemisphere technosphere I guess, but what is telling NATO forces that if they "only" nuke 5 Russian airfields like Russia just nuked 5 NATO airfields that the Russians won't escalate further, leading to the same end result? Not to mention that this scenario pre-supposes perfect coördination and discipline on all levels of both players' nuclear chain of command; if Russia actually had the "dead hand" system running, as depicted in Dr. Strangelove and possibly real life (!), how can NATO assume that "just" launching a couple of "tactical" nukes won't trigger the non-human MAD retaliation? well first, dead hand is semi-automated and doesn't work exactly like dr. strangelove. as far as we know, it wouldn't activate unless nato destroyed russia's command & control ability. but anyway, yes, one or both sides *may not* be able to act perfectly rationally. it is possible that one side goes too far and accidentally causes a full-scale response. escalate to de-escalate is, in fact, an insane strategy that i am in no way advocating as a wise move. however, that doesn't mean russia wouldn't attempt it as an alternative to defeat. they may see it as a calculated gamble and not credit the west's wherewithal to respond, and they would be, of course, making the exact same mistake that nato would be making in pursuing a shooting war against russia. the point is that a full-scale nuclear response is almost always a bad idea, and a limited strike is a tempting bridge that makes it possible to happen anyway. quote:I suppose a case could be made that the "rational" response to a nuclear attack outside the confines of MAD would be a devastating conventional assault instead, but this would also likely result in Russia escalating their nuclear strikes, and we're back to where we started. well, a limited nuclear strike already exists outside of mad. both the us and russia have developed weapons that dovetail with exactly this idea - we have stealth bombers with dial-a-yield nuclear weapons designed precisely to destroy enemy bases or military units. these are not very useful in the world of mutually assured destruction. the us openly does not operate with the policy of massive retaliation and we have left open the idea that we would not immediately respond with a greater force. this was the basis of carter's pd-59 memo which specifically suggested the us would attempt to win in the event of a limited nuclear war with russia. and, yes, no one wants to live on a globe with a rogue nuclear power, but they would probably prefer that to not living on the globe at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Russia's an oligarchy. The rich fucks control everything, right? So the rational target for a limited exchange would be dropping a tax nuke on every billionaire's palacial summer home. The next one goes to their principal address.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:you are correct that it is not rational for nato to invade russia. however, mad is predicated on the other side believing you are actually willing to strike the other guy. if nato did not believe the threat was credible and ignored russia's red lines and signals, the result would be limited nuclear strikes. russia *could* simply launch a full-scale attack, but why? that would result in their destruction. instead, they'd seek to gamble on a lesser attack and the west's desire to avoid an all-out war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Russia's an oligarchy. The rich fucks control everything, right? So the rational target for a limited exchange would be dropping a tax nuke on every billionaire's palacial summer home. Unsure if typo or clever pun
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Unsure if typo or clever pun I'm barely clever enough to find the post button but I'll take the win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
'm curious as to the actual state and quality of Russia's strategic missile arsenal though? Considering how thoroughly hollowed out a lot of units were from corruption and mismanagement, with units missing all kinds of essential kit thanks to it being sold off by people in positions of power without any faith in the work of their own organization.... could their MRBM and ICBM inventories be similarly cored out? Not trying to veer into clancychat or talk about nuclear deterrence specifically, but one my my more credibly-knowledgeable-about-strategic-operations friends has serious doubt as to the actual ability of Russia to capably respond defensively or offensively in a nuclear exchange. They are of the opinion that a lot of their ordinance would fail in way more ways than folks might expect and scoffs a bit every time he reads about Putin saber rattling about their own nuclear deterrence in the event of a western intervention. He believes that Putin might try some poo poo on the nuclear table but it would under-deliver and that Russia isn't actually fully capable of fulfilling their end of MAD, especially over Ukraine. Any smart opinions on this? Still trying to learn about the details of strategic deterrence and the moving parts therin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
DeliciousPatriotism posted:
waves frantically in the general direction of the thread title quote:Any smart opinions on this? Still trying to learn about the details of strategic deterrence and the moving parts therin. The people worried about loose nukes are probably a lot more worried if the rest of this poo poo could happen without Putin realizing, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 00:31
|
|