As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Argument About Global Thermonuclear War

zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
edited June 2023 in Debate and/or Discourse
502px-Nagasakibomb.jpg

War. War never changes.

Right now, there is somewhere around 15-20,000 nuclear weapons throughout the world. The vast majority of these weapons are owned by the two big players - the United States and Russia.

In case you haven't been watching the news, Russia decided to restart their imperialistic ambitions and start invading Ukraine piecemeal. This is causing some consternation in the west, especially within NATO as a number of NATO members border the Ukraine or have features that Russia finds attractive.

Arguably, these actions are causing a situation that's as close to World War 3 as we've been since...well, the Cold War at least.

This thread is for your discussion / arguments about war between Russia and NATO, outside of the context of the current crisis in the Ukraine. What do we have to be afraid of, how would this war progress, how likely is this war to break out, how irrational is Russia, etc.


Edit - Updated for people coming from the 2022 Ukraine Invasion thread. We have a lot of tangents and questions about nuclear war, MAD, ABM systems, modern doctrine, etc and this seems like a better place for higher level discussion than the Ukraine thread which moves incredibly fast.

And for the record, as of 3/4/2022 the Doomsday clock is at 100 seconds to midnight.

Edit 6/4/2023, we are now 90 seconds to midnight. Fuckin Putin.

zagdrob on
«1345678

Posts

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    The Doomsday Clock happens to be at Five Minutes To Midnight, currently.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    I don't really have anything to add but a youtube video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    What do we have to be afraid of, how would this war progress

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls
    zagdrob wrote: »
    how likely is this war to break out, how irrational is Russia, etc.

    That really boils down to two things, in my estimation: how much does Russia misinterpret it's falling from superpower status to be a question of external loss of influence and control over it's neighbors and spheres of influence, as opposed to internal decline and issues surrounding their oligarchic economic and political scene, and how much is Russia willing to go down the hole Putin has begun to dug for himself in Crimea, just to maintain that facsimile facade of global power.

    Russia has rational reasons to do what it's doing based on it's history of foreign invasion, occupation, the legacy of the Soviet period, etc., but they are only rational in the context of a continuation of the Cold War, insofar as this situation resembles the Cold War. And this is definitely not the Cold War. This is the West doing their best to build ties in Ukraine and deal with/punish Russia for a situation in Ukraine that Putin decided to escalate and exploit for minor territorial and strategic gain at the expense of his ties with the rest of the world. Nobody can say for sure what's going on in his head right now.

    War is very unlikely. Nobody wants it, needs it, or really has the backbone or economic stability for it. Europe is still pretty deep in that whole debt crisis thing after all. It's not impossible, and I generally follow AMFE's assertions in the Ukraine thread that WW3 between NATO and Russia would almost certainly end in nuclear exchange and all that entails, but I don't see a war happening. The world isn't the way it was thirty years ago. We don't blow each other up as much as we used to, and we certainly don't do it if it means there will be nothing left to fight for or return to. We use globalization, information, economic sanction, lots of fancy words and saber rattling, etc.

    488W936.png
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    fo0505_nuclearweaponsw9401.gif

    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    It should also be noted that violations of territorial sovereignty will encourage more countries to acquire nukes, even just a few, to maintain their sovereignty in a global environment that remains anarchical. Russia is being challenged especially hard for this reason. More nukes is very bad.

    488W936.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    movin over from ukraine thread
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    There is no scenario where ww3 between NATO and Russia does not go nuclear.

    That makes it even more paramount that treaty obligations are fulfilled.

    I understand the threads love of hyperbole but there are scenarios where it doesn't go nuclear. Even in a limited tactical nuclear exchange.

    oh its very possible its just something no one ever wants to test.

    yeah that's the thing

    if say, NATO stormed Crimea with an army I think it's unlikely Russia would jump to tactical nukes even if they lost the conventional war

    but I mean, not impossible, and that's scary

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    How will the Russians know we are targeting the tactical, but not strategic stockpiles? I mean, if we send air strikes deep into Russian territory, away from the combat zones, I doubt they are going to give us the benefit of the doubt.

    Because they aren't located on top of each other. And air strikes against missile silos isn't likely to kill the missiles and you need a lot of damn planes to even ponder it.

    Well, yes, but you'd need a lot of planes to take out the tactical weapon sites, too. It's not like they are going to be lightly defended. But the problem is, when an flight of bombers crosses the border, the Russians wouldn't have any idea what their target actually was. All they would know is that a damn lot of planes were invading their airspace with enough force to strike at a hardened target.

    @Thomamelas

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Why would that matter? An invasion of their air space on that scale would warrant a counter attack and those missiles will hit their targets long before the first plane opens it's bay doors.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Any war between nuclear powers almost by definition has to be some type of limited scale warfare. That would be a very weird thing - because we'd be sending soldiers to die overseas, in an engagement where at the Russian border we would just stop - and have to stop. And this would have to be known up-front - everyone would have to agree the conflict has hard limits that won't be crossed.

    Not exactly something which sounds likely to be maintained, hence no war being a much better option.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'd like to point out that if we're dealing with a rational Russia, they would have no doubt noted how things went for the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. All three of those countries are much, much smaller than Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan combined are still much, much smaller than Russia. Since the US seems to historically, at least in recent history, not have much stomach for occupations. Firing the ze missile would be a really fucking stupid thing to do because even if Russia lost militarily to NATO and even if that defeat was fairly one sided, chances are pretty good that NATO wouldn't be terribly interested in occupying Russia. Worst case scenario for Russia here, is that they would lose Crimea, the two parts they shaved off of Georgia and maybe a few other parts that wanted to break away, but most of Russia would still be their and most of the powers that be in Russia, would also still likely remain.

    Firing the ze missile isn't likely just to get NATO to fire their own missiles. It's very likely to prompt countries like China, India, other neutral countries that could launch a military strike of some sort and any Russian allies that decide they don't want to fight NATO; especially, since Russia decided to stick its dick into that hornets nest. To call up Russia and be like "hey fuckers, we saw that you decided to endanger the fate of humanity, so we decided that you fuckers will get to cease to fucking exist!" If everyone is acting rational, the rational action here is to dog pile and dumb fuck nation that launches the ze missile, so that everyone in the future fucking understands, that you do not launch ze fucking missiles because the world will end you. This is something rational countries would want because no one wins the thermonuclear exchange, survive maybe, but no one wins it regardless of their alliances.

    So I'm more inclined to agree with Buttcleft's post in the last thread. The non-state actors are the scary ones; especially, if they are the types to blow themselves up with the nuclear device anyways (likely being a dirty bomb). They don't have a state to lose and some of those fuckers are pretty fucking insane.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2014
    What? There's no scenario where anyone goes in and launches an occupation of Russia

    worst case scenario the USAF blows up things inside Russia's border, seriously occupying Russia would require a draft and a force of millions to even have a chance, I think it's even less likely than WW3

    override367 on
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Exactly, Russia wouldn't want to launch nukes because once the war ends, their will be no occupation forces in Russia. They get to continue to exist as a nation with the same shitty power brokers. They'll lose Crimea because Ukraine will likely use military forces on their own initiative to take it back. Same for the two parts of Georgia, if they lose it, it'll be because Georgia mounts a military strike to take those parts back. Anyway parts that break off, will do so, not because of occupation, but because a war with NATO will probably fuck up Russia's military capabilities greatly, where they are forced to rethink what turf they keep with force.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Resurrecting this thread due to the ongoing discussions eight years later around nuclear war between NATO and Russia in light of the (full, 2022) invasion of Ukraine.

    Currently the Doomsday Clock is a minute 40 to midnight, so things have clearly deteriorated since 2014.

    Ask or discuss away without worrying about derailing the Ukraine War thread. There is quite a bit of knowledge floating around and a lot of misconceptions.

    One thing that's important to understand is that while firing at a nuclear power plant is not good a nuclear power plant can not explode like a giant nuclear bomb. That's one small good thing. Modern nuclear power plants can't really even melt down like Chernobyl (almost certainly...) even if everything goes wrong.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    @Nova_C

    From the Ukraine thread...
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Back in the Gulf war, there was a lot of press about the Patriot missile system intercepting SCUDs. Problem was, it's actually really hard to intercept incoming munitions, so my understanding is that some SCUDs were intercepted, but most got through. It was described to me like trying to shoot a bullet at another bullet while it's flying through the air.

    I would imagine intercepting nuclear missiles to be at least as difficult, so even if some get shot down, I would imagine enough get through that it doesn't matter that some got shot down.

    Scuds are theater ballistic missiles and travel much slower and are detectible much earlier than ICBMs which carry the big warheads. Also Scuds don't carry multiple warheads that can maneuver independently (MIRVs).

    Modern Patriot PAC-3 missiles are far more effective against...well, everything, than they were in the first Gulf War, but while they might have some capability in perfect conditions to intercept and destroy ICBMs they almost certainly wouldn't stop a full launch.

  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    Does the nuclear submarine portion of the MAD triad still hold up with modern sensing packages? That is, these subs are almost impossible to find and track and can feasibly pop up within <5m missile strike range of just about any coast.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Does the nuclear submarine portion of the MAD triad still hold up with modern sensing packages? That is, these subs are almost impossible to find and track and can feasibly pop up within <5m missile strike range of just about any coast.

    Subs are one of the key parts of the triad and MAD. Arguably the most important part since the bomber leg is almost redundant / irrelevant with modern ICBMs.

    Subs give you for all intents and purposes guaranteed second strike capability even if you're not able to get your land based bombers or silo-based missiles off. A single Ohio Class carries about 288 warheads and is basically invisible and there are no defenses that can really stop the Tridents once they launch.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited March 2022
    Tumin wrote: »
    Does the nuclear submarine portion of the MAD triad still hold up with modern sensing packages? That is, these subs are almost impossible to find and track and can feasibly pop up within <5m missile strike range of just about any coast.

    Officially, yes. Not that any country is likely to advertise that they have effective stealth submarine tracking. But radar doesn't work, active sonar gives away the hunter's location from father away than it finds the target's, and basically everything about them is built to defeat passive sonar. There's also only 38 of them in the world (with nukes at least, the US also has four with conventional cruise missiles) and oceans are fucking big.

    Hevach on
  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    On the flip side, there's a lot of dual purpose research out there to locate whales and extensive (and presumably expensive) lines of sonobouys guarding our borders.

    And on the flip-flip-side I remember reading that in some circumstances the minute changes in the ocean's patterns visible via satellite could betray the presence of subs but I don't know if that was puffery or real.

    Presumably we still try to shadow Russian boomers with our attack subs but I haven't heard anything public about how successful we are in that kind of effort.

  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    I had a bit of an existential crisis this morning.

    I’m old enough to remember when “The Day After” aired.

    I thought we left all this behind, but like every other problem humanity has created for itself, we just let it fester. Here I was upset about my girls having to deal with a world of Christofascists and Climate Change, and now this.

  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Russia nuked Ukraine in some limited fashion as a desperation maneuver, as I think it's fairly unlikely NATO would risk all out nuclear war over that, sad as it may be.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I had a bit of an existential crisis this morning.

    I’m old enough to remember when “The Day After” aired.

    I thought we left all this behind, but like every other problem humanity has created for itself, we just let it fester. Here I was upset about my girls having to deal with a world of Christofascists and Climate Change, and now this.

    Yeah I am having some late-80s flashbacks right now that I do not like. Used to live close to Barksdale AFB, which is generally recognized as a 1st strike candidate.
    I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall. It's supposed to be a piece of history, not an augury stone.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Russia nuked Ukraine in some limited fashion as a desperation maneuver, as I think it's fairly unlikely NATO would risk all out nuclear war over that, sad as it may be.

    If Russia does that, and we don't act, it will be the beginning of the end anyway. We can't allow anyone to unseal the use of nukes under any circumstance without a response that demonstrates why Pakistan shouldn't nuke Mumbai and China shouldn't nuke Taipei. The freedom to do even limited first-strike nuclear attacks without overwhelming reprisal is the road to the real end of history.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    The detente of MAD only works if the A means what it says.

    So, yeah, if the dictators in charge of countries with nuclear capabilities figures out they can use them against countries without, and not get obliterated as a result, it's open season.

  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    edited March 2022
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The detente of MAD only works if the A means what it says.

    So, yeah, if the dictators in charge of countries with nuclear capabilities figures out they can use them against countries without, and not get obliterated as a result, it's open season.

    It's only ever meant between nuclear armed states capable of wrecking each other. Unaligned states are on their own, and hence fucked when a nuclear armed state decides they want to get involved.

    See: US vs. Iraq x2, US vs. Afghanistan, Israel vs. Palestine, Russia vs. Ukraine x3.

    A third world country meant a country not aligned with the big two nuclear powers of the US and USSR. There are enough nuclear states that that model does not fit anymore, but it remains: if you are not aligned with a nuclear power and don't have nukes of your own, it's open season.

    Why is North Korea touting its ability to reach US targets? Because that makes them a threat to the US, so the US doesn't just up and invade. Sure, they've got enough artillery and short range missiles to level Seoul, that's still not the same thing as lobbing an ICBM at LA if you're an American.

    Orca on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    None of those powers have used nukes against a non nuclear country though (I don't think Hiroshima or Nagasaki count as they predate the idea of MAD). I think the idea has always been, conventional weapons only in a war, because nuking a non-nuclear power might invite a nuclear response from even an un-allied nuclear nation.

  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    None of those powers have used nukes against a non nuclear country though (I don't think Hiroshima or Nagasaki count as they predate the idea of MAD). I think the idea has always been, conventional weapons only in a war, because nuking a non-nuclear power might invite a nuclear response from even an un-allied nuclear nation.

    Certainly that's been the concern that nobody has been willing to test since the US dropped two on Japan.

    I wouldn't bet my life that the rest of the world is willing to pull the trigger if someone sets off a nuke somewhere that isn't under a nuclear umbrella already however. That was never part of MAD.

    Doctrine as it stands is typically to allow for escalating options up to and including total nuclear war.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 2022
    The entire idea of non-proliferation is that those nations with nukes pledge not to allow their use against nations without, under any circumstances, and in exchange those non-nuclear nations pledge not to pursue nuclear capability.

    Not only will a lack of overwhelming reprisal for a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine mean that nations will begin nuking non-nuclear enemies, but it will kick off global proliferation. Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Saudi, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and a half-dozen other nations would rush to demonstrate nuclear capability and immediately threaten to destroy the capital city of anyone who crosses them. It'd be a slower fuse than instant MAD but it won't be possible to stop. Within 20 years the whole world will be nuclear and not long after, we'll have an exchange that ends basically everything.

    edit: I guess we could shoot for hyperviolent Nuclear-Allies hegemony and just fully obliterate anyone who tries to get a bomb - no more farting around with sanctions, just total fucking war. At least some of us would survive that, assuming we could agree to not turn on one another. Sort of a reverse NPT... no trying to get a bomb or we all join together to level your society & scatter you to the winds.

    All roads that start at "someone detonates a nuke, and then we do nothing" end in nightmares.

    spool32 on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    A bunch of y'all didn't live through this. It's history book shit for you, but like

    We barely avoided annihilating humanity, and that's not an exaggeration. There's no such thing as a little bit of nuclear war. We really could depopulate the planet in a matter of weeks, if not days, and what remains wouldn't reach a technological capability to even understand what was left for generations.

  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I had a bit of an existential crisis this morning.

    I’m old enough to remember when “The Day After” aired.

    I thought we left all this behind, but like every other problem humanity has created for itself, we just let it fester. Here I was upset about my girls having to deal with a world of Christofascists and Climate Change, and now this.

    Yeah I am having some late-80s flashbacks right now that I do not like. Used to live close to Barksdale AFB, which is generally recognized as a 1st strike candidate.
    I have a chunk of the Berlin Wall. It's supposed to be a piece of history, not an augury stone.

    Same feelings here. I grew up in the 80s, and my entire extended family was convinced that a nuclear apocalypse was inevitable and imminent. But then I got to see the Soviet Union break down, the unification of Germany etc. and for many years I thought humanity had survived its greatest challenge, and the future looked bright. But time is a flat circle, and here we are again.

    I guess there is some grim comfort in the feeling of "been here, done this."

    MSL59.jpg
  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    edited March 2022
    spool32 wrote: »
    A bunch of y'all didn't live through this. It's history book shit for you, but like

    We barely avoided annihilating humanity, and that's not an exaggeration. There's no such thing as a little bit of nuclear war. We really could depopulate the planet in a matter of weeks, if not days, and what remains wouldn't reach a technological capability to even understand what was left for generations.

    We didn't start the fire. The difference in how states seeking nuclear weapons that disarmed have been treated versus those that have doubled down on it makes nuclear proliferation a bygone conclusion. The US didn't choose to invade Ukraine, but you're an idiot if you don't take the lesson that nukes are the only way to protect your borders from another nuclear state.

    edit: I'm not saying this is right and good, I'm saying this will inevitably result because of actions taken in Libya and Ukraine, and not taken in North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iran is a borderline case where sustained effort has kept them from being able to go nuclear while being too hard a target for anybody not-crazy to want to get involved militarily.

    Orca on
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    MSL59.jpg
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    It’s kinda funny, we had a small argument on the holiday forum about if the current existential fears were worse than the existential fears during the Cold War and I think today has to absolutely win that argument now. We get to have the Cold War fears too!

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    i think what's happening right now presents a stronger argument for disarmament than i can previously recall

    what are our weapons even doing other than ratcheting up tension? great powers are still fighting and the mutually assured destruction doesn't have to be nuclear hellfire if everybody just decides they don't want to interact with you

    anybody that uses them will be a pariah, disarm and go all in on defense tech that's nearly there, we're maybe the only country with the budget to do it and we could lead the way

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Without nukes, Russia would be awash in blood as everyone fights over the useful parts.

    Given how shoddy their military is, they wouldn't be able to defend their territory with it without that larger threat.

  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    i think what's happening right now presents a stronger argument for disarmament than i can previously recall

    what are our weapons even doing other than ratcheting up tension? great powers are still fighting and the mutually assured destruction doesn't have to be nuclear hellfire if everybody just decides they don't want to interact with you

    anybody that uses them will be a pariah, disarm and go all in on defense tech that's nearly there, we're maybe the only country with the budget to do it and we could lead the way

    I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the current fighting is an argument for disarmament when disarmament is what is enabling the current fighting. If Ukraine had a dozen short-ranged ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads Moscow would be under threat and this adventure likely wouldn't have kicked off. The current crisis is an argument for greater proliferation, which is part of the problem since it shows treaties that countries signed to get them to disarm are worth jack and also squat.

  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    i think what's happening right now presents a stronger argument for disarmament than i can previously recall

    what are our weapons even doing other than ratcheting up tension? great powers are still fighting and the mutually assured destruction doesn't have to be nuclear hellfire if everybody just decides they don't want to interact with you

    anybody that uses them will be a pariah, disarm and go all in on defense tech that's nearly there, we're maybe the only country with the budget to do it and we could lead the way

    I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the current fighting is an argument for disarmament when disarmament is what is enabling the current fighting. If Ukraine had a dozen short-ranged ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads Moscow would be under threat and this adventure likely wouldn't have kicked off. The current crisis is an argument for greater proliferation, which is part of the problem since it shows treaties that countries signed to get them to disarm are worth jack and also squat.

    But at the same time, if Russia didn’t have nukes, would they be throwing their weight around?

    I suppose both are true, but one is easier to accomplish than the other.

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Blight on Discourse Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    i think what's happening right now presents a stronger argument for disarmament than i can previously recall

    what are our weapons even doing other than ratcheting up tension? great powers are still fighting and the mutually assured destruction doesn't have to be nuclear hellfire if everybody just decides they don't want to interact with you

    anybody that uses them will be a pariah, disarm and go all in on defense tech that's nearly there, we're maybe the only country with the budget to do it and we could lead the way

    I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the current fighting is an argument for disarmament when disarmament is what is enabling the current fighting. If Ukraine had a dozen short-ranged ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads Moscow would be under threat and this adventure likely wouldn't have kicked off. The current crisis is an argument for greater proliferation, which is part of the problem since it shows treaties that countries signed to get them to disarm are worth jack and also squat.

    idk how you can still think that mad is working with attacks on nuclear facilities and the things putin is saying

    aggression on our part continues to escalate tensions and arm the borders, and all of those weapons have to go somewhere when these governments collapse, which is a real uncertain proposition

    if it's down to nukes and putin won't respect the conventional military and the diplomacy of the united states after this showing, entire world's fucked anyway

    might as well see if trying something new can create a new paradigm, in our position

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited March 2022
    EDIT: WRONG THREAD

    MechMantis on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2022
    Orca wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    If world war three does happen I'll be very surprised.

    But hopefully not for very long.

    There are experts who are saying that it has already started, and future historians (if there will be any) will mostly debate the starting point. Was it the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, or did it start even before that?

    Fortunately they're also saying that WW3 might be mostly fought with money instead of weapons, so it might not be as bad as it sounds.

    i think what's happening right now presents a stronger argument for disarmament than i can previously recall

    what are our weapons even doing other than ratcheting up tension? great powers are still fighting and the mutually assured destruction doesn't have to be nuclear hellfire if everybody just decides they don't want to interact with you

    anybody that uses them will be a pariah, disarm and go all in on defense tech that's nearly there, we're maybe the only country with the budget to do it and we could lead the way

    I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the current fighting is an argument for disarmament when disarmament is what is enabling the current fighting. If Ukraine had a dozen short-ranged ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads Moscow would be under threat and this adventure likely wouldn't have kicked off. The current crisis is an argument for greater proliferation, which is part of the problem since it shows treaties that countries signed to get them to disarm are worth jack and also squat.

    idk how you can still think that mad is working with attacks on nuclear facilities and the things putin is saying

    aggression on our part continues to escalate tensions and arm the borders, and all of those weapons have to go somewhere when these governments collapse, which is a real uncertain proposition

    if it's down to nukes and putin won't respect the conventional military and the diplomacy of the united states after this showing, entire world's fucked anyway

    might as well see if trying something new can create a new paradigm, in our position

    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about in any part of this.

    And at the moment MAD is why Ukraine is getting invaded and Poland or Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania aren't. What continues to escalate tensions when it comes to Putin is his desire to control other countries around him. MAD just dictates which targets he can go after and why he can get away with it. Unliteral disarmament would just lead to more of this shit, not less.

    shryke on
Sign In or Register to comment.