First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply The threat of nuclear war is greater than ever
13329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Nuclear threats are all a facade that countries put on to make themselves feel strong. Most of the countries with nuclear capabilities aren't interested in old time wars. We're now all connected through technology and we share a common interest which is $$$. Apple gets their parts from many different countries and others are begging to hop on board. Engaging in a war would stop funding from businesses like apple and it'd be suicide for their economy. I think that people have a fascination with this kind of stuff, but it never actually happens.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:


luckystax wrote:

Nuclear War will never happen, because if one side fires missiles, then the entire world is dead because every one says screw it, we're dead already and fires there own. That's why it never happened in the Cold War, and that's why it won't happen now.



Like I've said, people won't read the article so I'd just have to quote its points. Bolded by me for emphasis. See below.


megahobbit wrote:

No its not. The amount of paranoid nutters on this forum is just baffling. A nuclear war would mean the entire first world would be fucked. Once one missile is fired all the treaties would lead to all the missiles being fired. Nobody wants that so nobody would fire a missile.


Yes it is. The Russian military doctrine under Putin is based on winning a nuclear conflict.


But when you consider this doctrine from the American side, you begin to see what makes it dangerous, even insane. Imagine that you are an American leader and your forces in Eastern Europe have somehow been drawn into conflict with the Russians. Perhaps, as artillery and planes from within Russia hammer your forces, you counterattack on Russian soil to take them out. The Kremlin, fearing the start of an invasion to take Moscow, drops a tactical nuclear warhead on your forces in Estonia or Latvia. You have no idea whether more Russian nuclear strikes are coming, either on the battlefield, more widely on Europe, or even against Washington or New York. Do you respond with an in-kind tactical nuclear strike, opening the risk of gradual escalation to total nuclear war? Do you, fearing the worst, move to take out the Russian leadership before they can order more attacks? Or do you announce a unilateral ceasefire, drawing your forces back in humiliation, rewarding Russia with a victory?

Russia's nuclear doctrine is betting that any American leader — not to mention the leaders of nuclear-armed France and the UK — would choose the last of those three options. If that prediction turned out to be wrong, it would mean nuclear war, perhaps global nuclear war and thus annihilation. This doctrine, in other words, is gambling with the fate of the world.

Such a scenario, to be clear, is remote, as are all of the nuclear scenarios. It would require a cascading series of events, and for neither side to pull back in time as those events built. The odds of this happening are quite low. But they are greater than zero, and growing. Such a scenario is within the realm of possibility — if it were not, then Russia would not regularly conduct military exercises that imagine exactly this outcome. And recall that Alexander Vershbow, the deputy secretary general of NATO, told a conference in late April that NATO is gaming out exactly such a crisis.

There are yet more worrying implications to this Russian doctrine. Its logical conclusion is that Russia sees itself as able to fight a war with the conventionally superior United States without losing, and that it can do this by using battlefield nuclear weapons. Under this doctrine, Moscow is deeming not only full-blown war against the US as imaginable, but a full-blown war with at least one nuclear detonation.

That, perhaps, can help explain why Putin has seemed so willing to ratchet up the possibility of a real war with the United States, even one involving nuclear threats — he may believe that through his superior will and brinksmanship, he can avoid defeat. Adding a nuclear element to any conflict would also seem to increase the odds of NATO's Western European members splitting over how to respond, particularly if Russian propaganda can make the circumstances leading up to the detonation unclear.

But this also shows the degree to which his entire strategy may rest in part on a shoddy premise — that "limited" nuclear war can be winnable — and one that puts the entire world at risk.


So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

Shishiosa wrote:

Yes, tensions are high and it seems the American populace doesn't care (and since they have food to eat and distractions to watch sadly the bulk of them don't. Watch this, DS9's Quark is describing things pretty well ... https://youtu.be/-D2SHNqkjbY ) your statement that right now the threat is higher than ever might be a tiny bit faulty. Those "near misses" with fighter craft were actually fairly common up through the 80's as each side was testing out what the other had, for crying out loud they blew airliners out of the sky ( http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/korean-airlines-flight-shot-down-by-soviet-union and http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm .) There was a point when the loaded bombers were in the air en route to target strikes, the ships were yards from each other with shells and STS loaded and ready to fire and the troops in motion. That time in 1962 Russia backed down. However, I don't think that'll happen again because I don't see the current American leadership roles being filled by someone willing to do what needs to be done in that case, now OR by any of the current future contenders.


Such a situation would be "all the better for Russia" from the Russian point of view. It wouldn't even need to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to invade the Baltic states and Ukraine, since there is a lack of resolve from U.S. as well as NATO.

A doomed NATO (it would be nullified as soon as it's not able to function as it supposed to, according to its charter) as well as several countries once again under Russian rule would not be good to say the least, but sadly it is much better than having a nuclear conflict. This is what Putin and Russia is betting on. Failing that, they're betting on the Western sphere backing down after one or more bomb drops and that's also a possibility.
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

megahobbit wrote:

So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.


It is based on a change in military doctrine, which itself is based on winning a limited nuclear war.

What you've said is basically waving aside every kind of political and military analysis there is. That's a rather cavalier way of dismissing it. Military strategies are based on "what ifs". It's what's taught in war colleges.
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:

I've expected that there's really not enough attention span to go around for such a long article (people won't read it), and that all the points being missed would have to be quoted.


pirththee wrote:

Nope. The US is farther from nuclear war now than it has been in many years.Putin's gambit has cost the Russian economy dearly ,as has the reduction in oil prices.Putin now enjoys wide reaching support at home, but a famous Russian named Leon Trotsky once noted that"Any society is only three square meals away from anarchy".



Krazylegz26 wrote:

The chances of Nuclear Warfare are extremely slim on the European Front with Russia. The Nuclear detterance and protection today, compared to the Cold War. Is far greater than it was during that time period. The majority of eastern European countries are dotted with U.S. and NATO military bases and missile silos. Russian aggression is on the rise but it's all political. Russia is just flexing and trying to intimidate. Another Ukraine incident will have far more severe reprecussions, especially geopollitcally. Russia only recieved sanctions and frozen bank assets and their economy is reeling over.

Europe is somewhat dependent on Russian energy. That's the only dent Russia can really do. Their military is out-dated; except for their choppers and jets. They're top in world but have no combat experience.

I believe Russia is a far less threat. The real bang for our buck will most likely be Korea. If North Korea decides to shell Seoul or far worse attempt to Nuke it. Shit will happen. That Nuke will be so hard to stop because on short the distance is.

China will most likely get pulled in. Chinese aggression is far worse than Russian



kinga750 wrote:

It's hardly the first time in the past few decades Russia has threatened to use nukes. It's just political posturing.

I don't think the threat of nukes being used is much greater now than it has ever been. There is always the risk of course. We will never be free of that... until an even more devastating weapon comes along.


Actually it's the opposite. Many Cold War safeguards aren't there anymore. Add to that a sense of complacency that wasn't there before (The similar false calm before WWI):


In the Cold War, he pointed out, both sides had understood this risk and installed political and physical infrastructure — think of the "emergency red phone" — to manage tensions and prevent them from spiraling out of control. That infrastructure is now gone.

"All those mechanisms were disrupted or eroded," he said. "That [infrastructure] has been degraded since the end of the Cold War because the common perception is that we don’t need it anymore."

That the world does not see the risk of war hanging over it, in other words, makes that risk all the likelier. For most Americans, such predictions sound improbable, even silly. But the dangers are growing every week, as are the warnings.




600 billion dollar a year defense budget is hardly complacency and I'd like to point out the that Vox .com is not unbiased.Does anybody really entertain the idea that with the state of current technology the US government still relies on "Red Phones" ,the Dew line, Duck and Cover, SAC,and Civil Defense shelters. Those are just some of the laughable safeguards of the cold war era.There isn't any preparation that is going to stop the vast majority of us from being incinerated and it isn't going to be just nationally specific.You have more to fear from the farmers fields in North and South Dakota then you have from Moscow or Beijing.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.


It is based on a change in military doctrine, which itself is based on winning a limited nuclear war.

What you've said is basically waving aside every kind of political and military analysis there is. That's a rather cavalier way of dismissing it. Military strategies are based on "what ifs". It's what's taught in war colleges.


What I said is the article is all based on stupid what if scenarios. Most military analysis is based on reconnaissance not speculation.
4375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

habit456 wrote:

Nuclear threats are all a facade that countries put on to make themselves feel strong. Most of the countries with nuclear capabilities aren't interested in old time wars. We're now all connected through technology and we share a common interest which is $$$. Apple gets their parts from many different countries and others are begging to hop on board. Engaging in a war would stop funding from businesses like apple and it'd be suicide for their economy. I think that people have a fascination with this kind of stuff, but it never actually happens.


Moscow under Putin is very interested. It wants any reason it could get to allow it to subjugate the Baltic states as well as Ukraine:


That problem is this: Putin's Russia is weak. It can no longer stand toe to toe with the US. It no longer has Europe divided in a stalemate; rather, it sees the continent as dominated by an ever-encroaching anti-Russian alliance. In the Russian view, the country's weakness leaves it at imminent risk, vulnerable to a hostile West bent on subjugating or outright destroying Russia as it did to Iraq and Libya.

Putin's answer has been to assert Russian power beyond its actual strength — and, in the process, to recast himself as a national hero guarding against foreign enemies. Without a world-power-class military or economy at his disposal, he is instead wielding confusion and uncertainty — which Soviet leaders rightly avoided as existential dangers — as weapons against the West.

Unable to overtly control Eastern Europe, he has fomented risks and crises in there, sponsoring separatists in Ukraine and conducting dangerous military activity along NATO airspace and coastal borders, giving Russia more leverage there. Reasserting a Russian sphere of influence over Eastern Europe, he apparently believes, will finally give Russia security from the hostile West — and make Russia a great power once more.

Knowing his military is outmatched against the Americans, he is blurring the distinction between war and peace, deploying tactics that exist in, and thus widen, the gray between: militia violence, propaganda, cyberattacks, under a new rubric the Russian military sometimes calls "hybrid war."

Unable to cross America's red lines, Putin is doing his best to muddy them — and, to deter the Americans, muddying his own. Turning otherwise routine diplomatic and military incidents into games of high-stakes chicken favors Russia, he believes, as the West will ultimately yield to his superior will.

To solve the problem of Russia's conventional military weakness, he has dramatically lowered the threshold for when he would use nuclear weapons, hoping to terrify the West such that it will bend to avoid conflict. In public speeches, over and over, he references those weapons and his willingness to use them. He has enshrined, in Russia's official nuclear doctrine, a dangerous idea no Soviet leader ever adopted: that a nuclear war could be winnable.

Putin, having recast himself at home as a national hero standing up to foreign enemies, is more popular than ever. Russia has once more become a shadow hanging over Eastern Europe, feared and only rarely bowed to, but always taken seriously. Many Western Europeans, asked in a poll whether they would defend their own Eastern European allies from a Russian invasion, said no.

Russia's aggression, born of both a desire to reengineer a European order that it views as hostile and a sense of existential weakness that justifies drastic measures, makes it far more willing to accept the dangers of war.


10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15


27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

megahobbit wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.


It is based on a change in military doctrine, which itself is based on winning a limited nuclear war.

What you've said is basically waving aside every kind of political and military analysis there is. That's a rather cavalier way of dismissing it. Military strategies are based on "what ifs". It's what's taught in war colleges.


What I said is the article is all based on stupid what if scenarios. Most military analysis is based on reconnaissance not speculation.


Incorrect. Capability is but one small part of analysis. https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/analytical/military-analyst.html
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.


It is based on a change in military doctrine, which itself is based on winning a limited nuclear war.

What you've said is basically waving aside every kind of political and military analysis there is. That's a rather cavalier way of dismissing it. Military strategies are based on "what ifs". It's what's taught in war colleges.


If the state of the Russians intelligence community has degenerated to the point where their top secret strategic doctrine is published in Vox and discussed in the CR forums then i'd say that there is very little to fear.This sounds alot like Dr. Strangelove.
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

pirththee wrote:


600 billion dollar a year defense budget is hardly complacency and I'd like to point out the that Vox .com is not unbiased.Does anybody really entertain the idea that with the state of current technology the US government still relies on "Red Phones" ,the Dew line, Duck and Cover, SAC,and Civil Defense shelters. Those are just some of the laughable safeguards of the cold war era.There isn't any preparation that is going to stop the vast majority of us from being incinerated and it isn't going to be just nationally specific.You have more to fear from the farmers fields in North and South Dakota then you have from Moscow or Beijing.


Complacency is not about how much anyone spends but how seriously a change in policy is taken.


pirththee wrote:

If the state of the Russians intelligence community has degenerated to the point where their top secret strategic doctrine is published in Vox and discussed in the CR forums then i'd say that there is very little to fear.This sounds alot like Dr. Strangelove.


The entire point was for it to not be secret. The entire point of MAD back in the Cold War days was that it wasn't secret.
62698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Actually, the threat of nuclear war is lesser than its every been before. Nuclear weapons are no longer the most lethal or effective ways of destroying each other. Depending on how you look at that, things could be considered much worse because the Russians, NATO, the US, and soon China and Japan have weapons capable of neutralizing all organic mater inside a "blast zone" while leaving most of the underlying infrastructure in tact. . .
62698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:


600 billion dollar a year defense budget is hardly complacency and I'd like to point out the that Vox .com is not unbiased.Does anybody really entertain the idea that with the state of current technology the US government still relies on "Red Phones" ,the Dew line, Duck and Cover, SAC,and Civil Defense shelters. Those are just some of the laughable safeguards of the cold war era.There isn't any preparation that is going to stop the vast majority of us from being incinerated and it isn't going to be just nationally specific.You have more to fear from the farmers fields in North and South Dakota then you have from Moscow or Beijing.


Complacency is not about how much anyone spends but how seriously a change in policy is taken.


pirththee wrote:

If the state of the Russians intelligence community has degenerated to the point where their top secret strategic doctrine is published in Vox and discussed in the CR forums then i'd say that there is very little to fear.This sounds alot like Dr. Strangelove.


The entire point was for it to not be secret. The entire point of MAD back in the Cold War days was that it wasn't secret.




So, for Russia to catch up to the US defense budgets specifically for Northern Command and NATO, Russia would need to spend their annual budget on a monthly basis for 5 to 6 years and then quarterly indefinitely in order to maintain their new toys assuming they could gain access to the technology required to spend that much money.

Additionally MAD Doctrine was a phrase coined after a concept that a brilliant sociopolitical analysts came up with after analyzing how the Russian's and NATO were dancing around each other during the mid 70s.

To be blunt, the founder of the modern day KGB (FSB) now runs the country and is doing a VERY good job of "staying the course" right into the ground. He and his boy's have decided to trade economic wellbeing for nationalist loyalty. This move will only stabilize the nation inwardly; in other words, their ability to project power is only artificially bolstered and cannot be prolonged for more than a decade.

Then again, I am only a college graduate with a masters in American Foreign policy, American Counter Intelligence, and an undergraduate degree in Sociopolitical Analysis -- what do I know?

Eh, I can't help myself. . . lastly, the Cold Way was the greatest thing to ever happen to American Industry and Economy. Why in the world would you be saddened by the potential end of globalization which would lead to the continuation of the American Empire? <3
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

ghosthacked wrote:

So, for Russia to catch up to the US defense budgets specifically for Northern Command and NATO, Russia would need to spend their annual budget on a monthly basis for 5 to 6 years and then quarterly indefinitely in order to maintain their new toys assuming they could gain access to the technology required to spend that much money.

Additionally MAD Doctrine was a phrase coined after a concept that a brilliant sociopolitical analysts came up with after analyzing how the Russian's and NATO were dancing around each other during the mid 70s.

To be blunt, the founder of the modern day KGB (FSB) now runs the country and is doing a VERY good job of "staying the course" right into the ground. He and his boy's have decided to trade economic wellbeing for nationalist loyalty. This move will only stabilize the nation inwardly; in other words, their ability to project power is only artificially bolstered and cannot be prolonged for more than a decade.

Then again, I am only a college graduate with a masters in American Foreign policy, American Counter Intelligence, and an undergraduate degree in Sociopolitical Analysis -- what do I know?

Eh, I can't help myself. . . lastly, the Cold Way was the greatest thing to ever happen to American Industry and Economy. Why in the world would you be saddened by the potential end of globalization which would lead to the continuation of the American Empire? <3



Well, if you're done editing the reply...

Notice that my previous reply already said indirectly that the new policy has nothing to do with "catching up on defense spending". It only involves the willingness to use the tactical nuclear weapons already in Russian possession.

The willingness to defend Crimea with nuclear weapons was also secret at the time of its invasion.

I'm only alarmed by the potential of nuclear devastation. Even a "limited nuclear war" was found by a study to be capable of causing the death of billions with its aftereffects. That is, of course, without being killed outright.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

nanikore2 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

So much of this article is based on "what if" scenarios its entirely useless.


It is based on a change in military doctrine, which itself is based on winning a limited nuclear war.

What you've said is basically waving aside every kind of political and military analysis there is. That's a rather cavalier way of dismissing it. Military strategies are based on "what ifs". It's what's taught in war colleges.


What I said is the article is all based on stupid what if scenarios. Most military analysis is based on reconnaissance not speculation.


Incorrect. Capability is but one small part of analysis. https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/analytical/military-analyst.html


Okay. Thats a job application for an organization thats pretty secretive Im doubt it gives an accurate reflection of what you do in there. But let me ask you this. Was the person who wrote the article a military analyst?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.