|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
mkultra419 posted:But nationalism and saber rattling tends to create more opportunities for an absurd chain of events leading to a civilizational collapse scenario. It may still not be very likely, but the consequences are so dire we should be very concerned with anything that increases that likelyhood. This is really what I was getting at with this thread. The real danger is an accident happening by random chance in the midst of heightened tension, saber rattling, and a hot headed megalomaniac at the trigger. MAD only works when both sides have perfect information about what's happening. If one side truly believes an attack is happening that goes out the window. The Russians really believed there was an attack in the "Norwegian rocket" incident, but Yeltsin was cool headed enough to correctly guess it was an error. If, after some possible crisis with Russia, Trump feels betrayed by Putin and is informed of a possible attack, what does he do? Conversely, what does Putin do in that situation, having the perception of Trump as unstable?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I feel kinda bad about the gutrumbly feel of that last post so while my knowledge of nuclear capability and game theory is spotty, here's an essay that mostly encapsulates what knowledge I do have on the subject. Get ready to limber up that scrolling finger, boyos This was a good read, though I think the author got a little too excited about rural militias there at the end. It's interesting that there'd be a pretty good chance of survival, even if your city was nuked by a fairly large warhead. Even the radiation wouldn't be that bad if it was an airburst. Really, the article makes it sound like that by far, the worst part of a nuclear exchange would be the fallout wafting east from the ground-burst-nuked Minuteman silos out west. So you'll probably survive the war, and then die a terrible lingering death in the aftermath 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 07:24
|
|