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

Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 123 posts

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#51

Post by richardw »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #23
beachy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback…

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalatio…

Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate.

The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land.

The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act.

The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#52

Post by ck45 »

Beltiras wrote: post #32
sgt101 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more likely that he retires to the country. Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years. Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.

This is exactly why dictators never retire. They would always be a thorn in the new rulers side.

They do retire, but in exile

From https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225

> Exile has been the second most common fate for dictators who lost office since World War II

See https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_O... for a list of dictators and their destinations from 1946 to 2012

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#53

Post by roenxi »

Const-me wrote: post #17

Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.

Sure, but my concerns with that:

1. The US has put sufficient weapons in the heartland of what used to be the USSR that Moscow is having difficulty keeping troops & friendly administrators in power in Eastern Ukraine. Is it realistic that they are going to try to responsible and peaceful approach a 2nd time? It didn't work last time. The Russians might have noticed. I'm not sure I trust the propaganda that Putin is the only one driving their behaviour.

The US has made the peaceful approach look stupid in hindsight. This time they might try a pufferfish-style escalate-into-nukes to try and get the US to back off sending weapons to their enemies. Otherwise where is the line where the US stops pushing forward? Which could realistically doom us all, I hope nobody misjudges in this tense and terrifying situation.

2. War is very chaotic. Things happen that nobody expects, individuals make irrational decisions, people mis-judge the capabilities of entire populations of other people. Realistically, the US doesn't have the power to engineer this outcome. It is rolling dice.

3. Toppling governments routinely leads to the next government being less stable and rational than the last one. It isn't like toppling a government leads to a sudden tradition of stable government.

I don't think it is likely that this happens or that it prevents nukes being launched. Maybe add in a 20% "other" category somewhere on the diagram. Hardly comforting.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#54

Post by EdwardDiego »

mrjin wrote: post #33
beachy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback…

I seriously doubt US will directly engage Russia if Ukraine get nuked as it's simply doesn't make sense per the "America First" or now "America Only" playbook. The only question really should be whether Putin dare to nuke Ukraine, if he indeed go there, end of story.

US isn't the only player with nukes though.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#55

Post by Aeolun »

okasaki wrote: post #41

It's interesting to think about an alternative history where Russia joined NATO. As Putin did want to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

They were in a great position to do so right before this whole mess started.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#56

Post by Aeolun »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #23
beachy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback…

First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalatio…

I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional.

Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#57

Post by Aeolun »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #35
spywaregorilla wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.

The question here is: what nuclear threat? Russia is not threatening Nato. There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but…

> but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.

Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#58

Post by mrjin »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #13
reducesuffering wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we resp…

Isn't " sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet " directly striking Russia? To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia. Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.

Weren't any nukes onboard with Russian Black See fleet? I guess in their position, they wouldn't mind to take the whole world down with them by launching all nukes onboard?

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#59

Post by okasaki »

ycombinete wrote: post #46
okasaki wrote: post #41

It's interesting to think about an alternative history where Russia joined NATO. As Putin did want to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

> did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter > if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner Equal to who? To Putin this means equal to all others combined. Certainly not those other countries that don’t matter.

The article certainly doesn't give that impression. But maybe you were there and so you have some special insight that the rest of us don't?

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#60

Post by mrjin »

atoav wrote: post #38
mytailorisrich wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't " sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet " directly striking Russia? To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia. Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.

> Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia? Under certain viewpoints it is the difference between attacking the US command in Iraq and striking troups in New York. The black fleet is stationed on annexed land as of the view of most UN member states. An attack on troups stationed on foreign soil is not the same as an attack on troups stationed e.g. in the capital of an country. The black fl…

Were you seriously talking about laws? For those super powers, they are the law as long as they can win the war.
Post reply on HN