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

91–100 of 123 posts

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

#91

Post by jacknews »

jules-jules wrote: post #87
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.

But those figures will likely try to seize power in the chaos of a humiliating defeat for Putin, and possibly use the situation as an excuse to escalate, even if Putin himself does not.

Far better to keep things on a slow boil, so when things eventually shift internally in Russia, there is at least some stability externally. And when they do shift, it may be in the other direction, with the hawks washed away by popular dissent, or just fatigue for the war.

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

#92

Post by spywaregorilla »

mrjin wrote: post #78
spywaregorilla wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.

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

#93

Post by spywaregorilla »

frontman1988 wrote: post #72
spywaregorilla wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales.

Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful.

> Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him.

Lunacy to bank on that

> But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century.

That's a nonsense sense of causality.

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

#94

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

singularity2001 wrote: post #86
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.

> ≈ 0% that the West will retaliate.

Putin had hoped for that after 2014,but he was in for a nasty surprise in 2022. The probability of NATO to strike back is 100%. It doesn't matter if they destroy the Black Sea fleet or naval bases or do something else, they already communicated to Putin several times that the response will not need to be nuclear but for sure will be painful.

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

#96

Post by polotics »

pydry wrote: post #31
Const-me wrote: post #17

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

This is the US government's preferred outcome. The US media therefore gives the impression that it's a lot more likely than it actually is. See also: sanctions induced economic collapse within 6 months.

What makes you think this, do you have a source for this "US government preferred outcome" ?

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

#97

Post by trasz »

anon84873628 wrote: post #71
trasz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Russia is world’s last colonial empire. The two reasons to allow it to keep its colonies (ie most of the territory east of Moscow) was to keep it as a force stabilizing the region and to prevent them from being claimed by China. Now it’s no longer useful in the former role, as evidenced by conflict in Armenia, and if China pivoted to the West - given that Russia is a clear loser - it might not make sense to pursue the latter.

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

#98

Post by Someone »

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…

> 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.

General Petraeus is a retiree who didn’t officially speak for NATO or the US government. That gives NATO and the US government some wiggle room.

My guess is that that’s a possible response, but not a guaranteed one. Let’s say there’s a detonation high above the Black Sea with zero direct victims and a prognosis of very few indirect victims due to long term effects of radiation (effectively more fireworks than weapon). I don’t see NATO or the US government sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet for that. But who knows?

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

#99

Post by polotics »

singularity2001 wrote: post #86
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.

100% that NATO invokes article 5 because of fallout landing on the first square centimetre of Polish land, or wherever. Then the big guns, big tanks, all conventional, come out, and the Russian oligarchs and Silovikis are left with two choices: MAD and lose all their accumulated wealth and comfort, or negotiated de-fanging.

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

#100

Post by polotics »

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…

In my understanding any post that refers to "Russia" as doing anything is a major fudge: the current leadership of that country clearly does not act in the best interest of that country.
Post reply on HN