Live data from Hacker News

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

lesswrong.com

1–10 of 123 posts

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

#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 a victory in Ukraine but without cornering them, as has been suggested by some leaders. The West has an interest in Russia not winning but they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.

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

#7
post #5

"I view it as highly unlikely ( Whereas the affects of nuclear on his own country will make him a hero? Sorry, it's just lose-lose.

One of the things that is being shattered in Ukraine right now besides the Russian Army is the Russian self image. Now that's a powerful thing to lose. Russians have believed that they were a strong important country, now, the truth is here and it turns out they are weak and unimportant. Unable to project any sort of believable conventional power onto the world.

The soviet union was obviously strong militarily with wast sphere of influence, but Russia has not filled its shoes at all.

All the years of corruption and greed shows.

In that backlight, using tactical nuclear weapons will at least let the regime assert some kind of might.

One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability.

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

#8

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 respond, then how they respond…

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

#9

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.

Post reply on HN