Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality. China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility. In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power".
Also, fun note on the expense front. The expensive part of nuclear weapons isnt the warheads themselves. It is the maintenance on them to make sure they still retain the ability to actually go critical and create the nuclear boom. It is the single most expensive part of the US Nuclear Program. Now consider that Russia claims to have double our warheads...but half of our budget toward their nuclear program. I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
yeah, Russia clearly doesn't maintain a lot of their force, yet pretends that it is still ready to fire so they can point to big numbers on paper. We have seen with their invasion of Ukraine that Russia tends to focus on trying to look mighty on paper while neglecting real-world capability.
I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had.
The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded. It is completely mad, but they did it anyway. You yourself have also cited that incident with the submarine.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine, and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that, you will blame Biden and the "libs" for being too weak, or whatever. No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
I can only imagine a nuclear first strike happening as follows:
Israel would use nukes if it believed it was going to lose militarily against an opponent whose military/political objectives would result in the end of Israel as a jewish state.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
North Korea would use nukes in circumstances uncertain because it's such a black box shitshow over there that nobody really knows. Unlike they'd use them if they got bombed. If the regime elites felt like their personal situation was hopeless, they might flip the chess board, especially if China offered them sanctuary and secretly told them to launch. China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either. IMO NORK is the only true nuclear threat for this reason.
Short of the above, Russia will NOT use nukes because using them would do Russia more harm than good. Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes. The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
So in exchange for a small and temporary battlefield benefit, Russia becomes a total international pariah. Even China would be forced to totally embargo Russia, or else itself be subject to total trade embargoes. With even China and India cutting them off, Russia would totally collapse economically, as it simply doesn't have an internally self sustaining economy. It relies very heavily on trade to meet its basic needs.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed, which is exactly what would happen if Russia popped off even a single tactical nuke. Which is why it won't.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had. The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded.
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Castro was irrational but he never controlled the nukes. Khrushchev blinked because the shooting down of the U-2 by a Soviet missile violated direct orders from Moscow, and Cuban anti-aircraft fire against other US reconnaissance aircraft also violated direct orders from Khrushchev to Castro. AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders. Khrushchev also knew that he could not rely on the 162 tactical nukes to deter an invasion, because the Americans didn't know about them. So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
Therefore, when he heard Robert Kennedy had relayed to Dobrynin: "You have drawn first blood ... . [T]he president had decided against advice ... not to respond militarily to that attack, but he [Dobrynin] should know that if another plane was shot at, ... we would take out all the SAMs and antiaircraft ... . And that would almost surely be followed by an invasion."
This caused him to IMMEDIATELY back down, because based on all the information at his disposal, given his loss of control of Soviet forces in Cuba and their disobedience of his orders, this was the only way to prevent nuclear war.
Had the Soviets in Cuba actually reliably followed orders, he would not have needed to back down. It was poor discipline and a lack of trust in his own troops that forced that result.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational. While Castro was irrational, this only means that the lesson learned is to stop at nothing to prevent any irrational actor from getting nukes.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in democracies.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
ICBMs take 30-60 minutes flight time, during which they are easily and immediately spotted, and the US/USSR have systems in place to counter-launch before the "first strike" arrives. On top of that you have subs packing enough heat to glass you by themselves with no hope of preventing it.
The only time first striking becomes possible is if you have a VERY GOOD ABM interception system and LOTS of interceptors, but since the ABM system is more expensive than the nukes themselves, it's easily hard countered by simply building more nukes to saturate it. The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Definitely a case where they woudl be used. But India was the first to develop nuclear weapons, despite its own conventional superiority.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
Whether or not the Russians will face 'genocide' will make no difference. The regime there, as regimes everywhere, cares only about its own survival. If it does not survive, what does it matter if Russians do or don't face genocide - the incentives for the regime is the same.
China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either
Obviously, the elites don't care if their populations get glassed, except insofar as this prevents their exploitation of their population. The US doesn't want half its population to die, because that would rob it of half its tax base and cannon fodder, obviously not because they 'care about people' or whatever crap they make you believe.
Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes.
That's a tactical nuclear weapon. Also possible is a nuclear strike on say Lwow. Or even the use of small-yield nuclear devices on command and control, power, etc. There's also a great psychological blow of "we're being nuked". As you rightly pointed out, the ordinary bombing of Japan did more damage than did the nukes, but the nukes had greater effect.
The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
It's interesting that you pre-emptively addressed it, because I was just about to bring it up. Moreover, to be able to credibly pretend that you will defend NATO, you would have to use nuclear weapons in the Warsaw Pact, not tell Germany that you will nuke Soviet forces once they arrive in Germany.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed
What I like about you is that you make some observations about 'Russian elites' which are true of elites everywhere, and then pretend that it's solely applicable to Russian elites. It's like the Imp who says "I DON'T TRUST FEMALE POLITICIANS!" Suggesting that he does trust male politicains.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
He'd be completely insane to exchange American cities for some shithole in Ukraine. And since American elites do not want to lose half their tax base and cannon fodder, obviously he's not going to do that. I'm sure they have nuclear-proof bunkers for themselves while they let the rest of us die, but being able to waste 50% less money would be a blow.
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
American voters have no influence though, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That is why there is a Uniparty consensus. You didn't seriously think that the military-industrial complex would allow voters power over something as important as foreign policy?
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Yeah, it's pretty shocking, but I read that in Martin Sherwin's Gambling with Armageddon:
The first set of orders reflected the unadulterated fear shared by all. Pliyev was to put his forces "on alert", but was forbidden to use any of the nuclear weapons under his command (reversing the authority that Khrushchev had given him orally in July, when they discussed how he would defend his forces against an American invasion).
On reconsideration, however, such an order seemed pusillanimous. Why had tactical nuclear weapons been deployed with the troops if not not to defeat an "imperialist" invasion? The Cuban and Soviet troops would be outnumbered and outgunned. Those weapons - the nuclear-armed Lunas and FKR cruise missiles - were their only chance; they had to be used. So new orders were written that rescinded the restrictions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and, in so doing, accepted the possibility of precipitating a nuclear war.
AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders.
Can they even fire nukes without central authorization?
So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
It's funny that you call other people 'suicidal' for warning about the risks of nuclear war, while being an absolute jingoist about nuclear annihilation over... Cuba.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational.
He is? Because the West keeps flip-flopping on it depending on what they want to say at any given moment. And rationality here, by the way, means that you would engage in some nuclear brinkmanship. Putin's excessive caution has done a lot of harm to his country. (I guess you could describe excessive caution as 'rational'.)
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
The analogy is that you think that just because you got lucky, it will continue like that forever.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in [lol] democracies.
Yes, and it's a political objective is a nuclear arsenal is of any actual use, not if it's completely useless. You lose as much prestige with a large nuclear arsenal as you win. China does not even need a large nuclear arsenal, because it has the industrial might and population to dominate conventionally.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
I distinctly recall you saying many times that "no, no, nuclear weapons will NEVER be used because MAD". Like I said, this is the first time you've said that they might be used under some circumstances.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
Yes, that's my point. If you can limit the damage done to say 50% of your country rather than 100%, then that would be damage limitaton.
The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Not sure where, but I've read an IR guy make a similar argument. That without an ABM, a country like NK could fire 1 nuclear missile at a US base and dare the US to respond and get glassed. With ABM, it would have to fire 50 for 1 to get through, and that's obviously of a different order than 1.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
Which again underlines my point: if the Russians want others to believe that they have a lot of nukes, when they don't (so you claim), then obviously having nukes provides the Russians with some benefit, which it wouldn't if nuclear war would only happen in a Barbarossa-type scenario.
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
Am I happy with the continued existence of a Ukraine? No. But there's no denying that things are a victory as it is.
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger. You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country? No. This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime. You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
Unprecedented powers in leeching. Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.
Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality. China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility. In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
Also, fun note on the expense front. The expensive part of nuclear weapons isnt the warheads themselves. It is the maintenance on them to make sure they still retain the ability to actually go critical and create the nuclear boom. It is the single most expensive part of the US Nuclear Program. Now consider that Russia claims to have double our warheads...but half of our budget toward their nuclear program. I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
It means that American military spending is mostly pork.
yeah, Russia clearly doesn't maintain a lot of their force, yet pretends that it is still ready to fire so they can point to big numbers on paper. We have seen with their invasion of Ukraine that Russia tends to focus on trying to look mighty on paper while neglecting real-world capability.
Double? You sure?
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had.
The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded. It is completely mad, but they did it anyway. You yourself have also cited that incident with the submarine.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine, and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that, you will blame Biden and the "libs" for being too weak, or whatever. No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
I can only imagine a nuclear first strike happening as follows:
Israel would use nukes if it believed it was going to lose militarily against an opponent whose military/political objectives would result in the end of Israel as a jewish state.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
North Korea would use nukes in circumstances uncertain because it's such a black box shitshow over there that nobody really knows. Unlike they'd use them if they got bombed. If the regime elites felt like their personal situation was hopeless, they might flip the chess board, especially if China offered them sanctuary and secretly told them to launch. China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either. IMO NORK is the only true nuclear threat for this reason.
Short of the above, Russia will NOT use nukes because using them would do Russia more harm than good. Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes. The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
So in exchange for a small and temporary battlefield benefit, Russia becomes a total international pariah. Even China would be forced to totally embargo Russia, or else itself be subject to total trade embargoes. With even China and India cutting them off, Russia would totally collapse economically, as it simply doesn't have an internally self sustaining economy. It relies very heavily on trade to meet its basic needs.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed, which is exactly what would happen if Russia popped off even a single tactical nuke. Which is why it won't.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Castro was irrational but he never controlled the nukes. Khrushchev blinked because the shooting down of the U-2 by a Soviet missile violated direct orders from Moscow, and Cuban anti-aircraft fire against other US reconnaissance aircraft also violated direct orders from Khrushchev to Castro. AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders. Khrushchev also knew that he could not rely on the 162 tactical nukes to deter an invasion, because the Americans didn't know about them. So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
Therefore, when he heard Robert Kennedy had relayed to Dobrynin: "You have drawn first blood ... . [T]he president had decided against advice ... not to respond militarily to that attack, but he [Dobrynin] should know that if another plane was shot at, ... we would take out all the SAMs and antiaircraft ... . And that would almost surely be followed by an invasion."
This caused him to IMMEDIATELY back down, because based on all the information at his disposal, given his loss of control of Soviet forces in Cuba and their disobedience of his orders, this was the only way to prevent nuclear war.
Had the Soviets in Cuba actually reliably followed orders, he would not have needed to back down. It was poor discipline and a lack of trust in his own troops that forced that result.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational. While Castro was irrational, this only means that the lesson learned is to stop at nothing to prevent any irrational actor from getting nukes.
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in democracies.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
ICBMs take 30-60 minutes flight time, during which they are easily and immediately spotted, and the US/USSR have systems in place to counter-launch before the "first strike" arrives. On top of that you have subs packing enough heat to glass you by themselves with no hope of preventing it.
The only time first striking becomes possible is if you have a VERY GOOD ABM interception system and LOTS of interceptors, but since the ABM system is more expensive than the nukes themselves, it's easily hard countered by simply building more nukes to saturate it. The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
I don't downvote you either.
Definitely a case where they woudl be used. But India was the first to develop nuclear weapons, despite its own conventional superiority.
Whether or not the Russians will face 'genocide' will make no difference. The regime there, as regimes everywhere, cares only about its own survival. If it does not survive, what does it matter if Russians do or don't face genocide - the incentives for the regime is the same.
Obviously, the elites don't care if their populations get glassed, except insofar as this prevents their exploitation of their population. The US doesn't want half its population to die, because that would rob it of half its tax base and cannon fodder, obviously not because they 'care about people' or whatever crap they make you believe.
That's a tactical nuclear weapon. Also possible is a nuclear strike on say Lwow. Or even the use of small-yield nuclear devices on command and control, power, etc. There's also a great psychological blow of "we're being nuked". As you rightly pointed out, the ordinary bombing of Japan did more damage than did the nukes, but the nukes had greater effect.
It's interesting that you pre-emptively addressed it, because I was just about to bring it up. Moreover, to be able to credibly pretend that you will defend NATO, you would have to use nuclear weapons in the Warsaw Pact, not tell Germany that you will nuke Soviet forces once they arrive in Germany.
What I like about you is that you make some observations about 'Russian elites' which are true of elites everywhere, and then pretend that it's solely applicable to Russian elites. It's like the Imp who says "I DON'T TRUST FEMALE POLITICIANS!" Suggesting that he does trust male politicains.
He'd be completely insane to exchange American cities for some shithole in Ukraine. And since American elites do not want to lose half their tax base and cannon fodder, obviously he's not going to do that. I'm sure they have nuclear-proof bunkers for themselves while they let the rest of us die, but being able to waste 50% less money would be a blow.
American voters have no influence though, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That is why there is a Uniparty consensus. You didn't seriously think that the military-industrial complex would allow voters power over something as important as foreign policy?
Yeah, it's pretty shocking, but I read that in Martin Sherwin's Gambling with Armageddon:
The first set of orders reflected the unadulterated fear shared by all. Pliyev was to put his forces "on alert", but was forbidden to use any of the nuclear weapons under his command (reversing the authority that Khrushchev had given him orally in July, when they discussed how he would defend his forces against an American invasion).
On reconsideration, however, such an order seemed pusillanimous. Why had tactical nuclear weapons been deployed with the troops if not not to defeat an "imperialist" invasion? The Cuban and Soviet troops would be outnumbered and outgunned. Those weapons - the nuclear-armed Lunas and FKR cruise missiles - were their only chance; they had to be used. So new orders were written that rescinded the restrictions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and, in so doing, accepted the possibility of precipitating a nuclear war.
Can they even fire nukes without central authorization?
It's funny that you call other people 'suicidal' for warning about the risks of nuclear war, while being an absolute jingoist about nuclear annihilation over... Cuba.
He is? Because the West keeps flip-flopping on it depending on what they want to say at any given moment. And rationality here, by the way, means that you would engage in some nuclear brinkmanship. Putin's excessive caution has done a lot of harm to his country. (I guess you could describe excessive caution as 'rational'.)
The analogy is that you think that just because you got lucky, it will continue like that forever.
Yes, and it's a political objective is a nuclear arsenal is of any actual use, not if it's completely useless. You lose as much prestige with a large nuclear arsenal as you win. China does not even need a large nuclear arsenal, because it has the industrial might and population to dominate conventionally.
I distinctly recall you saying many times that "no, no, nuclear weapons will NEVER be used because MAD". Like I said, this is the first time you've said that they might be used under some circumstances.
Yes, that's my point. If you can limit the damage done to say 50% of your country rather than 100%, then that would be damage limitaton.
Not sure where, but I've read an IR guy make a similar argument. That without an ABM, a country like NK could fire 1 nuclear missile at a US base and dare the US to respond and get glassed. With ABM, it would have to fire 50 for 1 to get through, and that's obviously of a different order than 1.
Which again underlines my point: if the Russians want others to believe that they have a lot of nukes, when they don't (so you claim), then obviously having nukes provides the Russians with some benefit, which it wouldn't if nuclear war would only happen in a Barbarossa-type scenario.
Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
Am I happy with the continued existence of a Ukraine? No. But there's no denying that things are a victory as it is.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger. You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country? No. This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime. You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
Unprecedented powers in leeching. Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.