Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#91

One thing we need to really think about as we come out of this, and not speaking specifically to the current conflict; There is too much opportunity for an unstable individual to rise to power in a nuclear enabled country, and for said individual to have access to a nuclear arsenal. We have a lot of really smart people in the world, and we really need to figure out some safety mechanism to make sure we don’t get wipe…

The fundamental problem here is that any such safeguard against improper use is a vulnerability for intended use that can potentially be compromised, and which, if an enemy believes it is compromised (even if it is not), undermines deterrence.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#92
post #90
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable human being would renounce counterattack to prevent mankind's annihilation. So the first one would be the winner.

Not counter attacking would be an agreement that the attacker can settle to their benefit any conflict by sending a nuke, without equal consequences for them, and so encourage them to sending more nuke. The only use of nuclear nuke is to replicate if someone else use theirs (or rather to let them know you would, so they don't). If you don't replicate, you might as well dismantle all your nukes after that. Unfortunate…

> I think Poutine and the others are well aware of that.

(emphasis mine)

Oh man, you've gone and declared war on Canada now.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#94

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay. I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him. He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, jus…

Why worry about it? It either won't happen, in which case you worried for nothing, or it will, and it won't be your problem anymore.

The worry maybe comes from somehow surviving the initial blast. For example, it's possible that no one is going to send nuclear bombs to McMurdo Station in Antarctica *. They'd likely survive the initial waves of attacks, but would be utterly cut off from the rest of the world for the rest of their lives. Or maybe they won't be cut off? Hard to know! What would you do if you were there in that situation? How long would you last? Basically, the second worst thing that could happen in nuclear war is *not* dying in the initial blast. It makes for an interesting discussion, which can lead some to worry depending on how the discussion ends.

* Substitute Antarctica for any rural site that isn't within 100 miles of a ground zero.*

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#95

It always surprises me that most of the discussion on nuclear Armageddon is about sudden push of big red button. I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation. My assumption is that the intervening, en…

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage.

For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#96
post #95

It always surprises me that most of the discussion on nuclear Armageddon is about sudden push of big red button. I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation. My assumption is that the intervening, en…

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage. For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

(the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem to indicate West indeed does not consider a tactical nuke to be the appropriate response to another tactical nuke).

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#97
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not counter attacking would be an agreement that the attacker can settle to their benefit any conflict by sending a nuke, without equal consequences for them, and so encourage them to sending more nuke. The only use of nuclear nuke is to replicate if someone else use theirs (or rather to let them know you would, so they don't). If you don't replicate, you might as well dismantle all your nukes after that. Unfortunate…

> I think Poutine and the others are well aware of that. (emphasis mine) Oh man, you've gone and declared war on Canada now.

Haha well, in case you didn't know, it turns out it's also what the madman who is attacking Ukraine now is named in French - and I assume in French Canadian too ? So I hope our friend from Quebec will not mind too much ^^

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#98
post #44

Nuclear armageddon almost happened multiple times in the past. To think it can’t happen is a necessary step in ensuring that it does.

And those are the ones that we know about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

I just added couple more, here are the video versions:

Stanislav Petrov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EmLf4Xlq0

Oleg Antonovich Gordievsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yprpoPc2g0k

Vasili Arkhipov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLokpu4ixQE

According to some comments "The Collapse Of Communism: The Untold Story" is a movie about Oleg Antonovich Gordievsky and there is a book "The Spy and the Traitor."

And Stanislav Petrov has a movie as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTFUqnY3E3Q

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#99

I think it's not a matter of if, but when. All it takes is one deranged individual. The only way to disarm the world of nukes is to unite under a rational, evidence and incentives based, benevolent world government. There's literally no other way to get rid of nukes if you've studied it. Even if every nation disarms they all live under the threat of another building them in secret. As soon as one of them suspects as…

> All it takes is one deranged individual. Not true, at least in the US and Russia. More than one person in the chain of command needs to commit to an all-out nuclear attack. It is perfectly plausible that someone along the chain would not follow such order. Here's a twitter thread (in German) explaining how this supposedly works in Russia: https://twitter.com/SwenRoschlau/status/1498575623941505026

Ok, maybe one was a bit of an exaggeration. I should have said "All it takes is one deranged individual and a handful of his his hand picked sycophants."

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#100
It has never been likely that any government would simply decide to start a nuclear war. Putin clearly has many delusions, but he knows how MAD works. But there are three nuclear war scenarios that seem plausible.

One is an unintended escalation to a nuclear war that nobody wanted. This has almost happened several times, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Able Archer 83. It is not impossible that Russian and NATO forces end up shooting at one another (say an aerial incursion, intentional or not, along the Polish-Ukrainian frontier) and this escalates to nukes because each side believes the other is going for it.

Another scenario is that Russia, faced with a quagmire in Ukraine without a clear path to an exit, decides to use a nuclear weapon in a “tactical” context (i.e. to achieve a limited military goal such as destroying the entrenched Ukrainian forces in the east). The possibility of tactical nuclear warfare has been debated since the Korean War, with many strategists believing this would inevitably escalate to a full strategic nuclear exchange (how can anyone know that you plan to stop after just 1-2 nukes?). How would NATO respond if Putin did this in Ukraine, which is not under the NATO nuclear umbrella? How about if he did it in, say, Poland as part of the escalation scenario described above? Again I think Putin understands MAD and that this is not very likely, but in a situation of military desperation (with Russia seeing no path to conventional victory and no way to deescalate without a dangerous loss of face), perhaps it can’t be ruled out.

The third and (in my opinion) scariest scenario is that Putin reaches a position where his political survival (and perhaps his very literal survival—there’s no retirement home for deposed dictators) is at stake and that he feels he has no way out. A combination of military quagmire and economic pain from sanctions could eventually face the regime with a loss of support from elites and masses alike. Putin could conceivably see no non-nuclear way to force an end to international sanctions and support for the Ukrainian resistance, and no way to fold his chips and end the war without making his domestic position even worse (who’s more vulnerable: a despised dictator, or a despised dictator who just made himself look weak?). If this happens, the nuclear blackmail could seriously ratchet up, as Putin could see nuclear blackmail against the West as his only lever for ending the pressure without a self-defeating show of weakness. At that point, would it be possible to deescalate? Would the West see negotiation with a nuclear hostage-taker as an invitation for further nuclear blackmail in the future? If his bluff is called, what would Putin do if he truly believes he has nothing to lose? Would the chain of command carry out his order, especially in a scenario where he may already be losing support from the military? This to me is the darkest scenario because we could no longer assume that all sides want to deescalate from all-out nuclear war.

Post reply on HN