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

Nukes and Stability

wearenotsaved.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Nukes and Stability

#11

Post by nickff »

azornathogron wrote: post #8
nickff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to ask yourself what he would achieve by using nuclear weapons, and what the costs would be. Using nuclear weapons seems unlikely to benefit the Putin regime in any way, and risks destablizing his position, both from inside and outside Russia. Putin is not crazy, he is acting rationally from his perspective (though it may be hard to understand). My suspicion is that the reports of him having cancer are corre…

> Putin is not crazy, [...] the Ukraine invasion was a way to bolster and secure his position in the face of doubt caused by the cancer. Although I (think I) know what you mean, the idea of starting a war, killing thousands of people, destroying cities and destroying the Russian economy all to avoid looking weak due to cancer... well, it certainty sounds pretty fucking crazy to me.

Illness and/or the prospect of death usually destabilizes dictatorships, as the regime's supporters try to secure their positions by selecting a successor who will preserve the status quo (or a favorable change).

I think Putin believed that this would be a quick victory, capturing the Eastern oblasts, and either negotiating a settlement with the Ukrainians, or conquering the country and installing a puppet regime. This is what most analysts seem to have expected, and the fierce Ukrainian resistance is what's forced the West to implement strong sanctions.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#12

Post by k__ »

nickff wrote: post #9
simonswords82 wrote: post #3

Interesting post, sort of. Not sure why I would trust this guys take over anybody else? I've looked him up and he doesn't seem to have any credentials that make me think his predictions could be more accurate than groupthink. Happy to be corrected...

This author appears to be somewhat uninformed, and doesn't seem to understand the way decisions are made in a dictatorship. I think the most revealing quote is this one: > "Third, [these insights] imply that the odds of nuclear war might be higher today than in the Soviet era, because Russia is much weaker. The Soviet Union simply had more ground to give up in a conventional war before defeat appeared existential tha…

Glad to read that.

All these apocalypse talks of uninformed bystanders are really gnawing at my mental health lately...

Re: Nukes and Stability

#13

Post by sbierwagen »

hadlock wrote: post #4
jostmey wrote: post #2

I have been gravely concerned that Putin would order a nuclear strike in Ukraine or elsewhere. Now, I believe the chances of that happening have actually gone down substantially. Why? Because Putin doesn’t want to risk ordering a nuclear strike to find out these deterrents, which haven’t been tested in decades, no longer operate (or never actually did operate). Then Russia would be completely vulnerable. Instead, I b…

I was surprised to find out just now that the last time Russia tested a nuclear weapon was, October 1990. Looks like most of their testing locations are/were located in former soviet bloc countries. Presumably that means any newer designs than what were tested in the 1980s, have never actually been tested before, and those that have, might be almost 35 years old.

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban...

The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either.

Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the rockets work, but not the warheads.

A very awkward exchange would be if Putin goes nuts and orders a first strike, we do a "use em or lose em" ICBM launch, and all the warheads fizzle over their intended targets. What then? Awkward coughing and shuffling of feet? Roll the tanks for a full-scale war in Europe? If the nuclear umbrella truly was the only thing preventing direct Great Power conflict, then do we shrug and institute 20th century-style mass conscription and blow the dust off all the century old war stockpiles?

Re: Nukes and Stability

#14

Post by ben_w »

azornathogron wrote: post #8
nickff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to ask yourself what he would achieve by using nuclear weapons, and what the costs would be. Using nuclear weapons seems unlikely to benefit the Putin regime in any way, and risks destablizing his position, both from inside and outside Russia. Putin is not crazy, he is acting rationally from his perspective (though it may be hard to understand). My suspicion is that the reports of him having cancer are corre…

> Putin is not crazy, [...] the Ukraine invasion was a way to bolster and secure his position in the face of doubt caused by the cancer. Although I (think I) know what you mean, the idea of starting a war, killing thousands of people, destroying cities and destroying the Russian economy all to avoid looking weak due to cancer... well, it certainty sounds pretty fucking crazy to me.

I get the sentiment.

I think “rational” and “crazy” are not incompatible; to me, a lack of empathy is a type of crazy, and yet I also think people who lack empathy can make rational or irrational decisions about how to reach their goals.

I’m not sure I’d count Putin as rational even given a lack of empathy, given what seems to happen to successful Russian generals even before this war.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#15

Post by labster »

nickff wrote: post #11
azornathogron wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putin is not crazy, [...] the Ukraine invasion was a way to bolster and secure his position in the face of doubt caused by the cancer. Although I (think I) know what you mean, the idea of starting a war, killing thousands of people, destroying cities and destroying the Russian economy all to avoid looking weak due to cancer... well, it certainty sounds pretty fucking crazy to me.

Illness and/or the prospect of death usually destabilizes dictatorships, as the regime's supporters try to secure their positions by selecting a successor who will preserve the status quo (or a favorable change). I think Putin believed that this would be a quick victory, capturing the Eastern oblasts, and either negotiating a settlement with the Ukrainians, or conquering the country and installing a puppet regime. Th…

I agree with everything in your post but the word “forced”, which is not quite right. It’s hard to sanction a fait accompli, sure. But there was a certain eagerness in the West for at least some sanctions. A lot happened in just one week.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#16

Post by beebmam »

k__ wrote: post #12
nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This author appears to be somewhat uninformed, and doesn't seem to understand the way decisions are made in a dictatorship. I think the most revealing quote is this one: > "Third, [these insights] imply that the odds of nuclear war might be higher today than in the Soviet era, because Russia is much weaker. The Soviet Union simply had more ground to give up in a conventional war before defeat appeared existential tha…

Glad to read that. All these apocalypse talks of uninformed bystanders are really gnawing at my mental health lately...

Hmm. If the Soviets were so deeply afraid of nuclear annihilation, maybe the US and NATO should be threatening it offensively as a means to get concessions. Like Russia has been doing.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#17

Post by kafkaIncarnate »

k__ wrote: post #12
nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This author appears to be somewhat uninformed, and doesn't seem to understand the way decisions are made in a dictatorship. I think the most revealing quote is this one: > "Third, [these insights] imply that the odds of nuclear war might be higher today than in the Soviet era, because Russia is much weaker. The Soviet Union simply had more ground to give up in a conventional war before defeat appeared existential tha…

Glad to read that. All these apocalypse talks of uninformed bystanders are really gnawing at my mental health lately...

Just ignore them. Doomers will exist your whole life, they have throughout mine. They used to be the evangelicals, but I guess the failures of Y2K and 2012 to come to fruition made them go... a different insane path.

Russia seems most interested in taking Ukrainian nuclear sites to give to Rosacom, establishing an oil/trade/military corridor through the black sea, and sealing up the holes in the natural physical barriers of defense that the USSR once controlled. Nuking Ukraine, or the world, or whatever, is counter to that goal. Putin miscalculated the sanctions the west would take in reaction to their invasion as most sanctions have been pretty tame in the past, so with the assumption that no or limited sanctions would be imposed, invasion might have made sense in a psychopath's world chess game. Obviously very little of this has gone to plan, but making things worse is not going to help him either.

Any real worry should go toward the primary real effects of the actual civilian casualties in Ukraine, including any real possibility of tactical nuclear warheads used (possible, but only semi-likely... still would be likely smaller than Hiroshima or Nagasaki if used) and the secondary effects of the wheat issues on the food supply in Africa and the Middle East in the coming years from low-yield of Ukrainian and Russian wheat crops. Oil/gas is going to be a clusterfuck but it'll adapt.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#18

Post by nowandlater »

sbierwagen wrote: post #13
hadlock wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to find out just now that the last time Russia tested a nuclear weapon was, October 1990. Looks like most of their testing locations are/were located in former soviet bloc countries. Presumably that means any newer designs than what were tested in the 1980s, have never actually been tested before, and those that have, might be almost 35 years old.

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either. Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the r…

For the US, I highly recommend the Nuclear Posture Review, which is compiled by and details the current administration's policy as it relates to its nuclear stockpile and strategic purpose.

The last one, 2018: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/201...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Posture_Review

Re: Nukes and Stability

#19

Post by ouid »

sbierwagen wrote: post #13
hadlock wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to find out just now that the last time Russia tested a nuclear weapon was, October 1990. Looks like most of their testing locations are/were located in former soviet bloc countries. Presumably that means any newer designs than what were tested in the 1980s, have never actually been tested before, and those that have, might be almost 35 years old.

The comprehensive test ban treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban... The US also hasn't tested since 1992. Given the situation with B-2 heat exchangers, F-22 spare parts and FOGBANK, I would not be interested in betting large amounts of money that American nuclear weapons are fully functional either. Interestingly enough, both the US and Russia routinely test fire ICBMs. So we know the r…

I believe that much of the work done in our nuclear laboratories is verification that the nuclear weapons work. They do not fall tremendously out of disrepair, as fissile material does not degrade much over the timescale of 20 years, and the degradation that occurs is extremely well studied. Your hopefulness is, for better or worse, extraordinarily unlikely.

Re: Nukes and Stability

#20

Post by Animats »

Not too helpful, but not useless. On the entire first screen there's an "I" or "Me" in every sentence. Then it gets better.

He's on point with this looking like the runup to WWI. And with Putin wanting a multipolar world.

The Institute for the Study of War has a better analysis of what Putin wants.[1]

“For the first time in the past two hundred to three hundred years, [Russia] is facing a real danger of sliding into the second and possibly third echelon of world states,” - Putin, 2012. Putin has been consistent about his aims. He wants a world with a few Great Powers, with buffer states between them. That's very 19th century, when Europe had about five empires pushing back and forth.

Putin’s Russia—unlike its predecessors—has no state machine or elite capable of balancing out his instincts and narratives. This is extremely important to understand. After Stalin, no leader of the USSR had the authority to start a nuclear war. Unlike the US President, the Premier of the USSR did not have launch authority. Only the Politburo did. That was built into the command and control system. Among other things, the army controlled the launchers and the KGB controlled the warheads, so they both had to work together to launch.

That separation of control has not survived into the Putin era. It's now official policy that Putin has launch authority.[2] That's what so scary this time. It's one guy.

[1] https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISW%20R...

[2] https://archive.ph/ibuRS

Post reply on HN