Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#21

Post by pygy_ »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #19
jmnicolas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly a nuclear war is "highly" survivable as long as you know to duck and cover once you see the flash. I say "sadly" because it's not as big a deterrent as we thought. You can read how to avoid 90% of the deaths here : http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm

This is misleading nonsense. In a real war most targets would be barraged by MIRVs, some of which would be ground bursts specifically designed to maximise the effects of fall out plumes across otherwise survivable areas. One way or another, your initial duck-and-cover survival won't last long.

And even if you survive the explosion and fallout, chances are you wont survive the logistic issues it would trigger, especially in large cities.

Edit, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#22

Post by varjag »

michaelt wrote: post #13

But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses, that’s what the spies delivered. “These people were close to the West, they lived in the West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but they reported what they were told to report,” Jones explains. [...] It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of the Soviet system,” says Jones, “So…

No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#23

Post by arethuza »

mirimir wrote: post #4

And then there was Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."[0] I was in Moscow when that went public. The Soviet government was not amused. Edit: Also, Charles Stross' A Colder War .[1] 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minut... 1) http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar…

Of course, the ending of A Colder War is far far worse than everyone simply dying in a nuclear war...

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#24

Post by adventured »

arethuza wrote: post #20
adventured wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest level politicians that took us into Iraq knew there were no WMD. They merely needed a good enough excuse to do it. We've got four star general - US Presidential candidate, and NATO Supreme Allied Commander right before 9/11 - Wesley Clark admitting it in public on YouTube. I'll never understand why the most important policy admission of the last 30 years is intentionally ignored in all discussion of what…

It's the politician's syllogism: - We must do something - This is something - Therefore, we must do this. After 9/11 the US had to do something , Afghanistan wasn't enough, so do Iraq.

They did Iraq right with Afghanistan because they had the war machine out of the box and the population revved up to allow it. If they had waited, the public and Congress would have been against it. Obama tested the waters for doing a larger war with Syria in 2013 (which would have attempted to ensure the removal of al-Assad), too much time had passed since 9/11 and people were very war weary by then. With almost no support for more big wars Congress shot it down and Obama abruptly backed down.

Sept 2013: "Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria"

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.ht...

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#25

Post by adventured »

varjag wrote: post #22
michaelt wrote: post #13

But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses, that’s what the spies delivered. “These people were close to the West, they lived in the West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but they reported what they were told to report,” Jones explains. [...] It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of the Soviet system,” says Jones, “So…

No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.

France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged in the Syria conflict.

"Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House talks"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-...

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#26

Post by pluma »

trhway wrote: post #7

We still have the chance - minor Ukraine/Russia navy conflict yesterday so far resulted in nation wide martial law in Ukraine triggered on today. I'd not put it past Putin to not let the crisis go waste and for example "solve" the Ukraine/Russia Azov sea issues by making the Azov sea outright into an internal Russian sea which would naturally raise the tensions with the NATO/Europe/US and others. (Also, given the ext…

I don't see how an incursion on Ukraine would result in a war with NATO. Ukraine's problem is precisely that it's a formerly neutral party and not part of NATO. In fact, from a Russian POV the reason for the annexation of the Crimean peninsula were fears fueled by Ukraine moving closer to NATO and the EU, violating its neutrality and jeopardising Russian military operations within Ukraine.

I'm not justifying the annexation -- it was clearly illegal and the circumstances of the (also illegal) vote suggest fraud -- but Ukraine is not part of NATO and even an all-out undeniable Russian invasion wouldn't trigger a war with NATO.

Is it in NATO's interests if Russia fully invades or goes to war with Ukraine? No, of course not. Is it a violation of international law? Most likely so. But would this trigger any international treaties that would result in WW3? Hell no.

WW1 and WW2 weren't just escalated because The Good Guys were unhappy with the aggressors. They were escalated because of international treaties forcing nations to declare war in retaliation to the aggressors.

In WW2 the invasion of Poland triggered the defensive pact with Britain and France who declared war after setting an ultimatum. As for WW1, I think most people have heard of the complete clusterfuck of international alliances and naivety that resulted in that escalation[1].

Ukraine is not part of the EU. Ukraine is not part of NATO. Strategic position aside, there's little reason for NATO to get involved as long as Russia has no intentions of moving further westwards. Even if the US invaded directly and declared war on Russia this wouldn't trigger NATO as NATO is a defensive pact, not an aggressive pact. It would of course result in a lot of diplomatic tensions with so many US military bases being located in the EU.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#27

Post by varjag »

adventured wrote: post #25
varjag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.

France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged in the Syria conflict. "Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House talks" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-...

Both Libya and Syria conflicts were started by their respective dictators massacring people.

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#29

Post by krig »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #19
jmnicolas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly a nuclear war is "highly" survivable as long as you know to duck and cover once you see the flash. I say "sadly" because it's not as big a deterrent as we thought. You can read how to avoid 90% of the deaths here : http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm

This is misleading nonsense. In a real war most targets would be barraged by MIRVs, some of which would be ground bursts specifically designed to maximise the effects of fall out plumes across otherwise survivable areas. One way or another, your initial duck-and-cover survival won't last long.

It's also misleading because it's talking about a bomb 1/10th the size of the Hiroshima nuclear detonation, while today, even just India and Pakistan alone have nuclear capabilities that are a hundred times beyond that. The implications not just from the initial strikes but the infrastructural devastation that would follow are impossible to estimate.

Re: A military exercise staged 35 years ago almost triggered World War Three

#30

Post by RobertoG »

arethuza wrote: post #20
adventured wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest level politicians that took us into Iraq knew there were no WMD. They merely needed a good enough excuse to do it. We've got four star general - US Presidential candidate, and NATO Supreme Allied Commander right before 9/11 - Wesley Clark admitting it in public on YouTube. I'll never understand why the most important policy admission of the last 30 years is intentionally ignored in all discussion of what…

It's the politician's syllogism: - We must do something - This is something - Therefore, we must do this. After 9/11 the US had to do something , Afghanistan wasn't enough, so do Iraq.

So, they choose Iraq randomly?

The idea of 'doing something' about Iraq was a lot older.

9/11 was just the excuse. When you read about the subject it's interesting to realize how many people in Washington was against that war, including the Pentagon and the State Department, but powerful interest prevailed.

From https://www.haaretz.com/1.4764706:

"Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts [..]"

Post reply on HN