The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia

Ramrod Hotshot: May 30, 2003

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?

# ? Jan 19, 2017 06:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

The fears are definitely understated, but for now under Trump, a nuclear exchange with China is probably more likely.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 07:04

Fried Watermelon: Dec 29, 2008

Why would you nuke one of your biggest trading partners?

# ? Jan 19, 2017 15:25

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Fried Watermelon posted:

Why would you nuke one of your biggest trading partners?

Art of the deal.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 15:27

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

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).

# ? Jan 19, 2017 15:28

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

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.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 15:47

Ramrod Hotshot: May 30, 2003

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.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 17:28

vegetables: Mar 10, 2012

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

# ? Jan 19, 2017 18:35

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

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.

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.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 21:52

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Chomskyan posted:

That could escalate into a nuclear exchange in a number of ways.

This is ridiculous fear-mongering.

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.

# ? Jan 19, 2017 23:41

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 00:26

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Rent-A-Cop posted:

This is ridiculous fear-mongering.

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.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 00:40

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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.

MAD is a non-factor in this discussion because the Chinese nuclear arsenal is insufficient to achieve it. When it comes to the employment of nuclear weapons China's options are "Don't" and "National Suicide", MAD doesn't come into it.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 00:44

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 00:55

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

The biggest risk is one of simple mistake and confusion.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 00:57

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

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"

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:00

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

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.

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?

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? :chloe:

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:04

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

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.

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?

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

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:06

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Trump Could Face a Nuclear Decision Soon

quote:

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.

This raises the perennial question of Trump�s reaction to indications of a Russian nuclear missile attack received in the wee hours of the night in the midst of an escalating crisis. Would he have a steady hand, or lose his composure and convulse with a knee-jerk reaction?

Nobody knows the answer, but we do know two things. First, such a challenge plays to Trump�s cognitive and emotional weaknesses. An imminent threat to the White House from incoming nuclear warheads flying at four miles per second would surely cause intense emotion and unsettle the steadiest of leaders. With only three to seven minutes allowed to assess whether the indications are true or false and decide whether and how to retaliate, any leader could make a bad call. (This system clearly needs to be reformed to greatly increase warning and decision time.) But Trump�s erratic and volatile personality makes for low confidence in his ability to reach the right decision. Second, a mistake would be irrevocable. If the president gives the order, which takes seconds to convey to his military, missiles would fire from their underground silos within five minutes and from their submarine tubes within 15 minutes. The missiles cannot be recalled or destroyed in flight once they are launched. They would reach their targets on the other side of the planet in 15 to 30 minutes.

quote:

Imagine the following:

�Trump receives urgent intelligence of North Korea�s prepping for nuclear attack and calls an emergency session of his National Security Council in the Situation Room. All his key military commanders around the world are patched into the call. The secretary of state reports that his counterparts in Japan and South Korea are appealing urgently for action to protect their nations from the erratic, volatile, and maniacal commander of the North�s nuclear forces. The CIA reports that communications intercepts and space reconnaissance reveal the Dear Leader�s forces are at maximum readiness poised for immediate launch and that he has instructed his military to prepare for nuclear conflict. And then Dear Leader slings vitriol at Trump himself, and demands an immediate cessation of joint U.S.-South Korean-Japanese military exercises in the region or else suffer the consequences of thermonuclear strikes.

�An irked Trump decides to teach the Dear Leader a lesson and returns the insults and the ultimatum: Stand down your nuclear missiles within 24 hours or else they will be taken out. The secretary of state delivers the demarche. Trump orders his military commanders to prepare their forces for a quick surgical strike on the North�s nuclear bases. He is told that a strike with U.S. and allied precision-guided conventional weapons delivered by aircraft and cruise missile stands a 95 percent chance of wiping out the nuclear threat. Trump says he believes that winning requires the destruction of 100 percent, and orders the Strategic Command to prepare to use nuclear weapons in order to ensure that none of the North�s nuclear weapons would survive and that the Kim dynasty is finally ended.

�During the next 24 hours, senior officials and military commanders discuss and debate the pros and cons of attacking the North, let alone employing nuclear weapons, and speculate on the president�s true intentions. Is it all a bluff, or does he in fact intend to strike and bring down the regime along with its nuclear forces. Might he actually order the use of nuclear weapons?

�North Korea, as is its wont, will not stand down�indeed becomes only more belligerent and defiant. A consensus then jells among most U.S. officials that the North�s outrageous behavior and rhetoric are par for the course and that the hot air does not warrant a pre-emptive military strike by U.S. coalition forces, much less a nuclear strike. But the situation on the ground has dramatically changed since the North�s nuclear missile forces became capable of destroying the major cities of its enemies. And when the 24-hour deadline arrives, and the CIA reports that nothing has changed except that intercepts reveal peak readiness to fire the missiles, the denizens of the Situation Room have internalized the distinct possibility that the president will in fact order a nuclear strike. They have prepared for it, and thus tacitly accommodated the decision.

Again, nobody knows how Trump and his senior advisers would behave. It is quite possible that serious objections would be voiced, perhaps with great vehemence. Would Trump listen to them and revise his thinking? Perhaps not. He brags (vacuously) that he has a big brain and primarily consults with himself. Surrounded by many hard-liners, it is also possible that a kind of group-think prevails bearing great deference to the commander in chief�s decision, however convoluted and emotion-racked his thinking seems to be. His team has come to regard the nuclear option as legitimate and perhaps even necessary.

One thing is certain: Trump will have the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons whenever he chooses with a single phone call. This (oversimplified) scenario suggests that even if Trump, consulting nobody, lashes out because of pique over Kim�s disrespect, his advisers might well simply demur, but if they do object and refuse they have no recourse but to excuse themselves from the proceedings and take what comes. 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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:25

TyroneGoldstein: Mar 30, 2005

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:25

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

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.

The hair-trigger policy has its roots in the Cold War. Military strategists feared a �bolt from the blue� Soviet first strike, involving hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons that would compromise our ability to retaliate. By keeping land-based missiles on hair-trigger alert�and nuclear-armed bombers ready to take off�the United States could launch vulnerable weapons before they were hit by incoming Soviet warheads. This helped ensure retaliation, and was seen as a deterrent to a Soviet first strike�a concept known as �mutually-assured destruction,� or MAD.

Submarines, which can�t be targeted when at sea, also kept weapons on hair-trigger alert. The decision to launch any nuclear weapon was based on information from radars and satellites, and remains so today.

The United States no longer keeps its bombers armed and ready to take off. But even though a Russian first-strike is not a credible risk, the United States still keeps its 450 silo-based nuclear weapons, and hundreds of submarine-based weapons, on hair-trigger alert. Thousands more�around 3,500 total�are deployed on other submarines or bombers, or kept in reserve.

Why is hair-trigger alert dangerous?

Hair-trigger alert increases the risk of an accidental nuclear missile launch, or a deliberate launch in response to a false warning. The results of such a launch would be catastrophic: modern weapons are many times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, capable of killing millions of people with a single warhead.

The risks of hair-trigger alert aren�t theoretical. A training tape was once misinterpreted as reality, initiating the steps needed to launch an attack. A defective computer chip once falsely reported an incoming attack at a time of extremely high tensions. And radar and satellite systems have both delivered false positives, giving decision makers limited time to sort out the truth.

China has the ability to move their nukes on to hair trigger as well, although it's unclear if they have.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:30

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:35

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

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.

The angry response came after secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said the US should deny Beijing access to new islands in the South China Sea. Two state-run papers carry editorials strongly criticising his comments.

The hawkish Global Times tabloid warned that any such action would lead to "a large-scale war". Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations. Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says. Speaking at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Mr Tillerson likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed." China's official response, from foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, was muted. China had the right to conduct "normal activities" in its own territory, he said. Asked specifically about the remark on blocking access, he said he would not respond to hypothetical questions.

'Unrealistic fantasies'

But editorials in the China Daily and the Global Times were more direct in their comments.

The China Daily suggested Mr Tillerson's remarks showed ignorance of Sino-US relations and diplomacy in general. "Such remarks are not worth taking seriously because they are a mish-mash of naivety, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices and unrealistic political fantasies," it said. "Should he act on them in the real world, it would be disastrous.

"As many have observed, it would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US. After all, how can the US deny China access to its own territories without inviting the latter's legitimate, defensive responses?"

The Global Times, a nationalist daily, suggested that Mr Tillerson's "astonishing" comments came because "he merely wanted to curry favour from senators and increase his chances of being confirmed by intentionally showing a tough stance toward China".

China would ensure his "rabble rousing" would not succeed, it went on. "Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."

The Obama administration has spoken out strongly against the island-building, pledged to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and sending navy ships to sail in contested areas. But it has not threatened to block access to the islands, a step likely to enrage Beijing.

Mr Tillerson did not explain how the US might block access to the islands, and both Chinese papers suggested a wait-and-see policy. "It remains to be seen to what extent his views against China will translate into US foreign policies," the China Daily said.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:35

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

I too take the state propaganda apparatus of an authoritarian regime at face value.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:37

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

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.

Yes, I suppose the cabinet could literally carry out a coup. Very insightful as always.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:38

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

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."

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:40

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Like there is a 100% chance that the news of Trump wanting to use nukes would reach Congress in that scenario.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 01:44

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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."

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.

That's the delusion you have to live under for any of this nuclear war nonsense to make sense to you.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 02:20

porfiria: Dec 10, 2008; by Modern Video Games

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.

That's the delusion you have to live under for any of this nuclear war nonsense to make sense to you.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 03:40

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

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.

That's the delusion you have to live under for any of this nuclear war nonsense to make sense to you.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 10:57

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 15:42

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 15:45

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 15:48

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 15:52

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 15:52

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

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.

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.

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

# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:00

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

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?

# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:05

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

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

# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:11

vegetables: Mar 10, 2012

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

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.

# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia

«‹›4 »