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

81–90 of 123 posts

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

#81

Post by drukenemo »

bmitc wrote: post #25
Eavolution wrote: post #11

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

It's scary that billions of lives are in the hands of probably just a few thousand people and hundreds of millions in even less hands. I wish people in the U.S. would realize the increasing danger we find ourselves in as power gets more and more concentrated and radical here. But alas, the three things humans are well evolved for -- power dynamics, violence, and technology -- keep rationality, emotional intelligence,…

It has always been like that.

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

#82

Post by radu_floricica »

beachy wrote: post #20
radu_floricica wrote: post #14

I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn…

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…

Thanks.

I don't think the fleet would make the best target. Ukrainian territory or not, the Sevastopol military base was always Russian (initially on rented ground, then in annexed Crimea). NATO has no real interest in attacking Russia itself, and will probably avoid even appearing to.

If it intervenes directly (still a big if), I'd mostly guess strikes against Russian bases inside Ukraine - that's the least interpretable action, and technically it's even an obligation for US under the Budapest Memorandum. The George Bush carrier strike group is currently in the Adriatic Sea, with eastern Ukraine barely within Tomahawk range, flying over NATO countries only.

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

#83

Post by jacknews »

I think the west needs to avoid being over-zealous in this fight, and let's face it we are heavily involved.

This war seems to be quite personal for Putin, and if he is pushed back too hard, he may act irrationally, or be ousted, and then who knows what chaos may ensue.

Europe should accept that cheap Russian gas is history.

And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.

It will be a tax on the west for sure, especially Europe (America should send aid), but a crippling all-consuming drain on Russia. There are rumors Putin is seriously ill. He will not likely last long as leader in any case, if the war drags on and drags Russia to the ground. But a more orderly transition will be possible if there is a stalemate in Ukraine, rather than a humiliating defeat.

As for nuclear escalation, it is now clear that the West's capabilities are so far superior to Russia that we need not respond in haste. If a dog bites you, you don't need to get on all fours and chase it to bite back; it's fate is sealed already. And honestly, will their nukes even work? I have my doubts given everything else that's been exposed by this misadventure.

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

#85

Post by Overtonwindow »

I am rather surprised in the confidence of Vladimir Putin‘s nuclear arsenal, and even his willingness to use it. He may say launch the missile, but I think there’s less than a 10% chance it will actually happen. Not only that, we have to consider the technological and maintenance capabilities of the systems. If Russia launches a missile, it’s a 50-50 that it won’t just turn around and come right back down on them.

The chances of a nuclear strike by Russia ate very, very low and most of this talk is sensationalism.

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

#86

Post by singularity2001 »

jules-jules wrote: post #84

Probably worth linking to the estimate by a group of superforecasters who give a 16% chance that Russia uses any type of nuclear weapon in Ukraine. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/...

That's my take as well: 16%-80% probability of Russia using a one-off scare strike, "Hiroshima" style to "stop the war". ≈ 0% that the West will retaliate.

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

#87

Post by jules-jules »

jacknews wrote: post #83

I think the west needs to avoid being over-zealous in this fight, and let's face it we are heavily involved. This war seems to be quite personal for Putin, and if he is pushed back too hard, he may act irrationally, or be ousted, and then who knows what chaos may ensue. Europe should accept that cheap Russian gas is history. And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except R…

The issue with waiting out Putin is that it assumes any successor would be more likely to go for a peaceful/negotiated solution. I think this is shortsighted as the most credible opposition figures take a far more hawkish stance, which would increases the odds of an all-out escalation.

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

#89

Post by Ekaros »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #80
bmitc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The key fact is that bunker in New Zealand is likely survivable thing in long term. Not nice(having to actual work and not having modern products available), but survivable. We aren't anywhere close that with Mars.

There seems to be some immense blindness just how hard and fragile living on Mars would be. For decades at the minimum but probably for centuries more likely.

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

#90

Post by Ekaros »

reducesuffering wrote: post #8
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…

> 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…

And I believe in that case Russia would be entirely in its right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against capitals of these attacking countries.
Post reply on HN