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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by anon84873628 »

trasz wrote: post #9
mytailorisrich wrote: post #6

There's a lot of rhetoric and bluff. I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia. Rather, the West should deny Russia…

>they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict. This might no longer be the case, given what looks like early signs of China pivoting away from Russia towards the West.

Can you please elaborate on this with regards to China?

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

#72

Post by frontman1988 »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #49
mytailorisrich wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I…

Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. I hope they are in touch with Putin and his cronies(although it doesnt seem like it) and make sure they don't do anything crazy. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.

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

#73

Post by d0mine »

netfortius wrote: post #66

I'm a little confused on the usage of "imminent" as a term associated with high probability of an event, to the extent of requiring immediate action, and the actual "one-in-six chance of... ".

I've interpreted "imminent" meaning "about to occur" that is one-in-six chances of global nuclear war soon.

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

#74

Post by paganel »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #44
paganel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. Saying that about the US president who was bankrolling a trillion dollars-plus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have put one in jail, interesting to see that when applied to another country is now perfectly ok. Relevant Whitest Kids U' Know sketch [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3_kUaYFJA

I very much doubt that. Maybe an awkward conversation with the Feds would've ensued while they ascertained if you had access to plutonium, much like the awkward conversation I had with Police when my estranged step-brother was threatening to shoot politicians, and they were trying to ascertain if I'd give him access to my firearms. (Fuck no, obviously.) Given the hyperbole that US politics has descended into, if your…

At least writing down that sort of stuff (death wishes against foreign politicians) on a public forum would have been frowned upon and made part of that forum’s TOS, but, as I said, doing this to the boogie man of the day is actually seen as ok.

Trump was (is, actually) also seen as a foreign-controlled boogie man, that’s why the open death threats on Twitter and the like were not reaceiving any action, including from Twitter itself. I haven’t seen any direct threats against Biden, more than that, anti-Biden people had to adopt that Brandon slogan thing in order to pass some of the implicit censorship applied by big tech companies.

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

#75

Post by mrjin »

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…

It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular).

So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.

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

#76

Post by mrjin »

Eavolution wrote: post #11

Do we not have better things to do as humans than blow ourselves up. seriously?

We do. But for those making decisions the answer is probably no. It's was never about right or wrong, better or worse, it's all about interest, but definitely not much about ours.

Sadly the fact is, to some people, our lives are no more than a number on the report. When it come to politics, everything is much darker than we thought.

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

#77

Post by ycombinete »

mrjin wrote: post #48
the_gipsy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The West The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.

Indeed. In this case, US would want the war to drag for decades without further escalating. Europe, however, would want the war to end as they are in deep sh*t themselves and there is no reason to continue fighting a war to benefit US.

It’s a fine line. The USA also doesn’t want a Europe that is collectively weaker than the Middle East or Asia.

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

#78

Post by mrjin »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #49
mytailorisrich wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I…

^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding?

There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.

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

#79

Post by EdwardDiego »

paganel wrote: post #74
EdwardDiego wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt that. Maybe an awkward conversation with the Feds would've ensued while they ascertained if you had access to plutonium, much like the awkward conversation I had with Police when my estranged step-brother was threatening to shoot politicians, and they were trying to ascertain if I'd give him access to my firearms. (Fuck no, obviously.) Given the hyperbole that US politics has descended into, if your…

At least writing down that sort of stuff (death wishes against foreign politicians) on a public forum would have been frowned upon and made part of that forum’s TOS, but, as I said, doing this to the boogie man of the day is actually seen as ok. Trump was (is, actually) also seen as a foreign-controlled boogie man, that’s why the open death threats on Twitter and the like were not reaceiving any action, including fro…

> I haven’t seen any direct threats against Biden

You're not looking hard enough.

Also, see the filth spewed out about any woman who is a minority Democrat congress member.

> anti-Biden people had to adopt that Brandon slogan thing

They chose to adopt it, your belief that they "had" to is not in alignment with the facts.

Given the obvious lineage of "Let's Go Brandon", if your assertion that they chose it to avoid being moderated/banned/imprisoned was true, then why isn't that happening when they mention Brandon? Because we all know what that means. Twitter knows, FB knows, the FBI knows.

Stating that this was forced upon them to avoid some mythical persecution carries the implicit assumption that everyone is an idiot who has no idea what they mean, the logic is severely flawed.

What I really enjoy about the whole Brandon thing is that their "clever" in-phrase has been co-opted and suborned by young Biden supporters, check out /r/DarkBrandon.

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

#80

Post by EdwardDiego »

bmitc wrote: post #69
frontman1988 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reason I support Elon's idea of having a colony on mars to reduce the risk of human extinction. Any incoming missile to mars from earth would easily get noticed and deflected or blown in space itself. It's not a question of if, but when that some maniac finally presses the nuke button here on earth with no country interested in nuclear disarmament and ever increasing geopolitical tensions with mad dictato…

Elon Musk is the embodiment of human fault. And a colony on Mars, if even remotely possible any time soon, will solve nothing. His selling of it is just that, a sales pitch and a medium for his ego.

It's the billionaire conceit of buying land and (allegedly) installing bunkers in New Zealand to survive whatever they think is coming, but taken to even more deluded extremes.
Post reply on HN