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

91–99 of 99 posts

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

#91

Post by mikeash »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #75
mikeash wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not require other nations to defend Ukraine from a non-nuclear attack.

While not required in a legal sense they certainly might do so anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is equally irresponsible. Germany, France, etc are going to (rightfully) have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine) that kind of belligerent behavior in Europe.

I was specifically addressing the Budapest Memorandum. It often gets brought up under the mistaken belief that it requires the signatories to defend Ukraine, and thus that the other signatories are in violation for not defending Ukraine against Russia.

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

#92

Post by duxup »

macspoofing wrote: post #80
duxup wrote: post #70

Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect .... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it happens. It is interesting to see how this plays out as the start of an exercise. I remember growing up in North Dakota and when the air force bases would run drills the sky would be filled with planes flying in formation .... no way you could tell if it was real o…

>Mutually assured destruction makes sense if humans and information is perfect .... but it's not so it seems more like it is just a matter of time until it happens. Or not. If it is chance that prevents our self-destruction then you would expect it to already have happened. Seems like there is 'something' (for lack of a better word) to prevent it. Whatever it is, it seems to work and we're still here.

I'm not sure the lack of self destruction in a short time frame means much, the events that have occurred were one decision away from the destruction part.

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

#93

Post by graeme »

js8 wrote: post #87
graeme wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative to MAD? We still have it. People have calmed down, but it remains. I always took it to be a description of the state of play once nukes exist.

The alternative to MAD is slow, painstaking process of nuclear disarmament. Mutually-assured disarmament, if you will.

How do you do that though? Whoever doesn't disarm has a massive advantage.

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

#94

Post by stefantalpalaru »

> Later that day, the Nato commanders left their building and went home, congratulating themselves on another successful – albeit sobering – exercise. What Western governments only discovered later is that Able Archer 83 came perilously close to instigating a real nuclear war.

You'd think that NATO was just having their quiet simulation and those silly Soviets misinterpreted, right?

What the article fails to acknowledge is the deliberate provocations targeting USSR at the same time as the military exercise - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Psychological_o... :

"Psychological operations (PSYOP) by the United States began in mid-February 1981 and continued intermittently until 1983. These included a series of clandestine naval operations that stealthily accessed waters near the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, and the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas, demonstrating how close NATO ships could get to critical Soviet military bases. American bombers also flew directly towards Soviet airspace, peeling off at the last moment, sometimes several times per week. These near-penetrations were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability as well as demonstrate US capabilities in a nuclear war"

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

#95

Post by mirimir »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #10
mirimir wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, of course, he was joking. Just a sound check. I have no clue who leaked it, in what order. From a reprint of contemporaneous coverage, I gather that many technicians heard the remark.[0] And eventual news coverage mainly served to put rumors at rest. 0) https://web.archive.org/web/20180917150154/https://www.thegu...

There's some interesting videos on YouTube from people who used satellite dishes to grab unencrypted transmissions that weren't intended for the public (although I don't know if that was the case here). Things like reporters talking shit about guests during a commercial break (since commercials were spliced in later on), Bill Clinton getting his makeup done, etc. There's an interesting documentary/compilation at [1]…

No, this was routine setup and testing. You had to actually record something, and play it back, to make sure that gear was working properly.

Your link reminds me of Cronenberg's Videodrome :)

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

#97

Post by pluma »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #75
mikeash wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not require other nations to defend Ukraine from a non-nuclear attack.

While not required in a legal sense they certainly might do so anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is equally irresponsible. Germany, France, etc are going to (rightfully) have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine) that kind of belligerent behavior in Europe.

Ukraine is not part of Europe as far as "Germany, France, etc" are concerned. These countries are concerned about the interests of the EU. Also, most of the EU has strong trade relationships with Russia (e.g. via Gazprom).

As long as Russia does not pose a direct threat to the EU, there's very little incentive to jeopardize trade relationships to uphold ideals in foreign countries.

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

#98

Post by pluma »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #77
pluma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anne…

While a war might not be triggered in a WW1-esque "if X then Y" sense it may very well happen anyway. Ukraine is as entitled to it's sovereignty as any other nation. Just letting the Russians steamroll Ukraine is not exactly a good solution either. Germany, France, England, etc. are going to (rightfully) have a very, very hard time tolerating (i.e. not coming to the aid of Ukraine) that kind of belligerent behavior i…

What gives you the idea any military intervention is ever based on protecting a random country's sovereignty? What incentive would NATO or the EU have to join Ukraine if this escalates to a direct military confrontation between Ukraine and Russia?

Yeah, having Ukraine be annexed by Russia would be a pity but if history has taught us anything a) Russia is too clever to do this without some level of deniability (see the "secession" of the Crimean prior to its annexation) and b) other countries are reluctant to get involved as long as the situation is "self-contained" (i.e. as long as it's just Ukraine and similar post-Soviet states with no direct ties to NATO members or the EU).

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

#99

Post by fapjacks »

Koshkin wrote: post #72
mcv wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice Wikipedia now spells it as Gaddafi. I thought it used to be Khaddafi in English. Interestingly, Dutch Wikipedia now calls him al-Qadhafi.

It's such a mess. We might be better off just translating the damn names (like they did in the remote past)...

Yes, but if we did that, the news would get confusing as we tried to sort out which "Grand King King of the Warrior Kings" they were talking about.
Post reply on HN