Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Martinus]

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

Were the guy making the decision I'd combine the two - try to take out all significant military assets, nuclear and conventional.

But to take it back to the starting point... it seems an awfully bold move by Putin to (hypothetically) nuke Warsaw - a NATO country - and blithely assume that NATO would lack the balls to strike back altogether. It almost makes more sense for him to go all out first, though I don't see that playing out too well for him either.

... I'm getting some serious nostalgia for the 80s here, for some reason, and I don't mean the pop-culture part.

Were there similar concerns about Russia nuking Copenhagen back in the cold war? I remember reading something about it, but obviously my memory is sketchy.

[Martinus]

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

Were the guy making the decision I'd combine the two - try to take out all significant military assets, nuclear and conventional.

But to take it back to the starting point... it seems an awfully bold move by Putin to (hypothetically) nuke Warsaw - a NATO country - and blithely assume that NATO would lack the balls to strike back altogether. It almost makes more sense for him to go all out first, though I don't see that playing out too well for him either.

... I'm getting some serious nostalgia for the 80s here, for some reason, and I don't mean the pop-culture part.

Even if it worked and he broke NATO, it would put Russia in to North Korea like isolation.

That scenario is much less problematic when about quarter of the world becomes your playground - withdrawal/collapse of NATO would mean that all of CEE, the Stans and parts of Asia would become Russian influence zone.

[grumbler]

Yes. But. If you are clearly targeting the nuclear and war capabilities of the Russians without going for cities and such, there is only one reasonable reaction from them: launch EVERYTHING while they can.

If you target the nuclear capabilities, whether you target the rest of the military or not, they must launch verything while they can.  That is precisely my argument.  If, on the other hand, you punish Russia for the nuking of Warsaw by the nuking of the main naval bases, military formations, and airbases, while leaving their nuclear forces alone, they have to choose between completely disarming themselves by firing their nukes and triggering the response that will end them as a civilization, or else becoming a power with nukes but nothing else.  I don't think Putin would survive politically in the latter situation, but the world would be safe.

[Jacob]

Were there similar concerns about Russia nuking Copenhagen back in the cold war? I remember reading something about it, but obviously my memory is sketchy.

I'm pretty sure most scenarios had Denmark utterly obliterated if the balloon went up, being inconveniently placed in the way of the Soviet Baltic fleet.

There was no specific attempts to single out Copenhagen for verbal intimidation as it seems there is for Warsaw right now, no (though I'm curious to what degree that's a thing Russia is doing vs an indicator of how jumpy you're feeling in Poland right now).

I was more commenting on current events leading to discussions where significant nuclear exchanges were on the table. I remain convinced that a scenario where Warsaw is nuked and little further happens is very very unlikely.

[Martinus]

So, to summarise the discussion between Berkut and Grumbler.

Let's assume it is 2020 and Russia has just nuked Warsaw. President Clinton is advised by General Berkut and General Grumbler. General Berkut is saying that the US should not strike at non-nuclear military targets of Russia, as this carries a too-high-risk of a MAD-triggering response. General grumbler is saying that the US should not strike at nuclear silos of Russia, as this incentives Russia to fire off all of its nukes before they are destroyed - thus triggering a MAD-like response.

Faced with a high risk of the world being annihilated and unable to choose between those two scenarios, President Clinton decides it is better to let NATO collapse and does not respond with a nuclear strike.

Still unlikely?

[Jacob]

Yes. But. If you are clearly targeting the nuclear and war capabilities of the Russians without going for cities and such, there is only one reasonable reaction from them: launch EVERYTHING while they can.

Certainly. And if they do that, then the only rational response from the West - and by that I mean the US, France, and the UK - is to utterly glass Russia.

... so I'd hope Putin considers that before wantonly nuking Warsaw. Perhaps he won't nuke Warsaw after all.

[Martinus]

Perhaps he won't nuke Warsaw after all.

Well that would be appreciated.

[Jacob]

So, to summarise the discussion between Berkut and Grumbler.

Let's assume it is 2020 and Russia has just nuked Warsaw. President Clinton is advised by General Berkut and General Grumbler. General Berkut is saying that the US should not strike at non-nuclear military targets of Russia, as this carries a too-high-risk of a MAD-triggering response. General grumbler is saying that the US should not strike at nuclear silos of Russia, as this incentives Russia to fire off all of its nukes before they are destroyed - thus triggering a MAD-like response.

Faced with a high risk of the world being annihilated and unable to choose between those two scenarios, President Clinton decides it is better to let NATO collapse and does not respond with a nuclear strike.

Still unlikely?

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty unlikely on part of the US, yes.

Even in the unlikely event that the US backs down - and I think that's a pretty preposterous result, to be frank - I'm pretty sure France would act unilaterally (and possibly force the US' hand at that point). Not sure about the UK.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, I've said it plenty of time before.  Just because I choose not to grumbler-proof my posts for the sake of brevity does not mean that I'm going back on my words when you then proceed to intentionally misinterpret them.  Any piece of communication can be misinterpreted if one tries hard enough.  This is why you're not that good of a poster:  sooner or later, your lack of desire to communicate in good faith will turn make any discussion acrimonious.  It happened countless times, with many posters other than myself, and it will keep happening again.

I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them.  You backed off ("Maybe I shouldn't have used a technical term in a possibly incorrect way") and then accused me of being a "tool"for responding to what you wrote ("psychotic") rather than "what was intended to be conveyed" (non-psychotic).

And speaking of dishonest, where does replying by proxy after promising to end the discussion rank?

I said I wasn't going to engage you any more on whether the Russian generals were order-obeying psychotic robots.  I didn't say you could  cheapshot me and get away with it.

[Jacob]

Perhaps he won't nuke Warsaw after all.

Well that would be appreciated.

Though if it did happen, I guess it wouldn't matter too much to you what happens afterwards.

You know, were I you I'd assume that NATO stands and Putin will lose everything if he strikes at Warsaw. If you're wrong, you'll be equally dead as if you assumed not, but in the meantime you'll have the satisfaction of being able to ignore Putin's attempts at rattling your cage.

[Jacob]

Grumbler, I've said it plenty of time before.  Just because I choose not to grumbler-proof my posts for the sake of brevity does not mean that I'm going back on my words when you then proceed to intentionally misinterpret them.  Any piece of communication can be misinterpreted if one tries hard enough.  This is why you're not that good of a poster:  sooner or later, your lack of desire to communicate in good faith will turn make any discussion acrimonious.  It happened countless times, with many posters other than myself, and it will keep happening again.

I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them.  You backed off ("Maybe I shouldn't have used a technical term in a possibly incorrect way") and then accused me of being a "tool"for responding to what you wrote ("psychotic") rather than "what was intended to be conveyed" (non-psychotic).

And speaking of dishonest, where does replying by proxy after promising to end the discussion rank?

I said I wasn't going to engage you any more on whether the Russian generals were order-obeying psychotic robots.  I didn't say you could  cheapshot me and get away with it.

I'm classifying this as a low level tactical exchange then.

[The Brain]

Perhaps he won't nuke Warsaw after all.

Well that would be appreciated.

Though if it did happen, I guess it wouldn't matter too much to you what happens afterwards.

You know, were I you I'd assume that NATO stands and Putin will lose everything if he strikes at Warsaw. If you're wrong, you'll be equally dead as if you assumed not, but in the meantime you'll have the satisfaction of being able to ignore Putin's attempts at rattling your cage.

Mart is more of the foot locker type.

[Berkut]

If you target the nuclear capabilities, whether you target the rest of the military or not, they must launch verything while they can. 

I still don't really see how you target their non-nuclear capabilities in a fashion (and with what assets) that make it clear you are not threatening their nuclear forces.


I suspect in many cases (ICBMs being the exception) a lot of those targets are co-located, like sub bases.


And I don't know how we hit a significant portion of their military assets with only air launched nuclear weapons, and I still don't really see how we make it clear to them the current limits of our targetting.

That is precisely my argument.  If, on the other hand, you punish Russia for the nuking of Warsaw by the nuking of the main naval bases, military formations, and airbases, while leaving their nuclear forces alone, they have to choose between completely disarming themselves by firing their nukes and triggering the response that will end them as a civilization, or else becoming a power with nukes but nothing else.  I don't think Putin would survive politically in the latter situation, but the world would be safe.

I think each time you engage in an escalation, you are giving the other side the opportunity to go the rest of the way where you lose your chance to preemptively remove the existential threat.


Once Russia crosses the initial threshold that has been in place for the last 80 odd years, the only reasonable response given our very situational technical superiority is to go immediate and full counter force.


I don't see another scenario that preservers that narrow superiority. What must be avoided at all costs is having the Russians launch first.

[grumbler]

So, to summarise the discussion between Berkut and Grumbler.

Let's assume it is 2020 and Russia has just nuked Warsaw. President Clinton is advised by General Berkut and General Grumbler. General Berkut is saying that the US should not strike at non-nuclear military targets of Russia, as this carries a too-high-risk of a MAD-triggering response. General grumbler is saying that the US should not strike at nuclear silos of Russia, as this incentives Russia to fire off all of its nukes before they are destroyed - thus triggering a MAD-like response.

Faced with a high risk of the world being annihilated and unable to choose between those two scenarios, President Clinton decides it is better to let NATO collapse and does not respond with a nuclear strike.

Still unlikely?

My understanding is that General Berkut is arguing for a massive thermonuclear strike on the Russian Strategic Rocket Force, with the argument that it is better to get the whole MAD thing going on our terms (i.e. the chance of knocking out the non-ready Russian ICBMs in their holes).  That's the really-big-risk, really-big-reward option.

[DGuller]

I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them.  You backed off ("Maybe I shouldn't have used a technical term in a possibly incorrect way") and then accused me of being a "tool"for responding to what you wrote ("psychotic") rather than "what was intended to be conveyed" (non-psychotic).

Speaking of what I actually wrote, one thing that I didn't write was "psychotic".