Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war
lesswrong.comThere'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.
> 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…
> 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?
And I believe in that case Russia would be entirely in its right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against capitals of these attacking countries.
Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?
To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia.
Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.
It isn't Iraq especially in the sense that Iraq had no where to go. On the other hand Russia can get the ** out of Ukraine and then carry on (more or less) as before. Yes, their economy is totally doomed now because it depends on energy that they are going to have a struggle to sell - for 10 years at least, but they do have a deescalation option. Iraq did not. Ukraine does not.
> Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?
Under certain viewpoints it is the difference between attacking the US command in Iraq and striking troups in New York.
The black fleet is stationed on annexed land as of the view of most UN member states. An attack on troups stationed on foreign soil is not the same as an attack on troups stationed e.g. in the capital of an country. The black fleet are military targets on the soil/waters of an invaded country in an attack war. This is the status most foreign ministries would tell you the black fleet has currently.
The question now is: What are the consequences of doing nothing, should Russia deploy tactical nukes?
Most analysts would say there are bigger consequences to doing nothing than to doing something of limited scale unless your goal is normalizing nuke deployment (very bad idea).
So where would you retaliate instead?
Were you seriously talking about laws? For those super powers, they are the law as long as they can win the war.
Yes and no. These superpowers are playing their power games on a world stage. As such they sometimes need the crowd on their side in order to win. That means that thin veneer of law does indeed count. After all each nation tries to keep their population under the believe that they are indeed the good ones.
That means war cannot move unrestricted from the rules that govern it. Or let's say it can, but at a (often significant) cost.
Weren't any nukes onboard with Russian Black See fleet? I guess in their position, they wouldn't mind to take the whole world down with them by launching all nukes onboard?
> The West
The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.
Indeed. In this case, US would want the war to drag for decades without further escalating. Europe, however, would want the war to end as they are in deep sh*t themselves and there is no reason to continue fighting a war to benefit US.
It’s a fine line. The USA also doesn’t want a Europe that is collectively weaker than the Middle East or Asia.
The west has some interest in a semi-stable russia, but not with putin in power.
Even if the war ends, russia would stay isolated on the world scene. But they must be punished for what they did, if only to get China to not make it any worse.
The NATO would be stupid if they nuked back, they have much, much more effective ways of striking back than tactical nukes.
One thing that has been suggested was the destruction of the black sea fleet for example which might thread an interesting needle:
- because it is stationed on Crimea one could argue it is not Russian soil, if one does not accept the Russian anexation of 2018
- it is mostly a military target so civilian casualties are not on the scale of e.g. nuking a city
- the defeat of the black fleet would certainly be felt in the (as of now) mostly isolated Moskow circles and political survival for Putin would be hard
As everything war you cannot really 100% rely on such planning tho. Unforseen dynamics may arise that take you for a ride with a destination you may not like. IMO Putin is currently on such a ride and if we had a machine that would return everything to a pre-Invasion state, I highly suspect there would be one Russian dictator that would like to use it.
But no such machine exists, and I think "the West" in case of tactical Nuke use has to find a way of threading the needle, with just enough retaliation to stop the Russians from doing more, but not so much that they completely panic. Doing nothing in return will normalize nukes, so it is not an option.
>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.
How is China pivoting to the West? Just last week we have Canadian parliament denouncing China for running extra-territorial "service stations" staffed by policemen in Ottawa.
And you have OPEC+ saying "No." to Biden and the White House repeatedly.
China is quietly following the sanctions, for example - more so than several EU countries. The “police stations” are a red herring from what I can tell.
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.
I think we'd need to invoke article 5 to stop Poland from rolling up on Russia in that case.
With the current hard-line politics and that absolute hate between the two, there is a hair trigger on that escalation.
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.
> ≈ 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.
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
Sure, but my concerns with that:
1. The US has put sufficient weapons in the heartland of what used to be the USSR that Moscow is having difficulty keeping troops & friendly administrators in power in Eastern Ukraine. Is it realistic that they are going to try to responsible and peaceful approach a 2nd time? It didn't work last time. The Russians might have noticed. I'm not sure I trust the propaganda that Putin is the only one driving their behaviour.
The US has made the peaceful approach look stupid in hindsight. This time they might try a pufferfish-style escalate-into-nukes to try and get the US to back off sending weapons to their enemies. Otherwise where is the line where the US stops pushing forward? Which could realistically doom us all, I hope nobody misjudges in this tense and terrifying situation.
2. War is very chaotic. Things happen that nobody expects, individuals make irrational decisions, people mis-judge the capabilities of entire populations of other people. Realistically, the US doesn't have the power to engineer this outcome. It is rolling dice.
3. Toppling governments routinely leads to the next government being less stable and rational than the last one. It isn't like toppling a government leads to a sudden tradition of stable government.
I don't think it is likely that this happens or that it prevents nukes being launched. Maybe add in a 20% "other" category somewhere on the diagram. Hardly comforting.
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" ?
This. It seems to me powers behind the throne would rather risk their lives and overthrow Putin, than risk their lives and more in a nuclear MAD scenario.
But there are many many alternatives before either of those two, so I imagine the vast majority are hoping against hope something else plays out, and they don’t have to decide between a risky coup attempt and certain nuclear annihilation.
Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”.
How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
I think it's more likely that he retires to the country.
Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years.
Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.
This is exactly why dictators never retire. They would always be a thorn in the new rulers side.
They do retire, but in exile
From https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225
> Exile has been the second most common fate for dictators who lost office since World War II
See https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_O... for a list of dictators and their destinations from 1946 to 2012
I was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Life_in_reti...
Often it's because the constitution of their country states that a sitting President can't be brought up on charges - Mugabe is a very obvious example.
But don't worry, Yeltsin had Putin's back...
> President of Russia, ceased to carry out its mandate, has immunity. They can not be held criminally or administratively liable for acts committed by them during the execution of the President's powers
History teaches that very rarely do dictators survive a fall. Putin is likely to face the firing squad. No successor could take the chance of leaving him alive.
> Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”.
Saying that about the US president who was bankrolling a trillion dollars-plus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have put one in jail, interesting to see that when applied to another country is now perfectly ok. Relevant Whitest Kids U' Know sketch [1]
I very much doubt that. Maybe an awkward conversation with the Feds would've ensued while they ascertained if you had access to plutonium, much like the awkward conversation I had with Police when my estranged step-brother was threatening to shoot politicians, and they were trying to ascertain if I'd give him access to my firearms. (Fuck no, obviously.)
Given the hyperbole that US politics has descended into, if your theory was true, half of US political Twitter would be in gaol already.
At least writing down that sort of stuff (death wishes against foreign politicians) on a public forum would have been frowned upon and made part of that forum’s TOS, but, as I said, doing this to the boogie man of the day is actually seen as ok.
Trump was (is, actually) also seen as a foreign-controlled boogie man, that’s why the open death threats on Twitter and the like were not reaceiving any action, including from Twitter itself. I haven’t seen any direct threats against Biden, more than that, anti-Biden people had to adopt that Brandon slogan thing in order to pass some of the implicit censorship applied by big tech companies.
> I haven’t seen any direct threats against Biden
You're not looking hard enough.
Also, see the filth spewed out about any woman who is a minority Democrat congress member.
> anti-Biden people had to adopt that Brandon slogan thing
They chose to adopt it, your belief that they "had" to is not in alignment with the facts.
Given the obvious lineage of "Let's Go Brandon", if your assertion that they chose it to avoid being moderated/banned/imprisoned was true, then why isn't that happening when they mention Brandon? Because we all know what that means. Twitter knows, FB knows, the FBI knows.
Stating that this was forced upon them to avoid some mythical persecution carries the implicit assumption that everyone is an idiot who has no idea what they mean, the logic is severely flawed.
What I really enjoy about the whole Brandon thing is that their "clever" in-phrase has been co-opted and suborned by young Biden supporters, check out /r/DarkBrandon.
> You're not looking hard enough.
I'm really curious, where should I have looked? I'm quite regularly checking on the reddit off-site version of what used to be /the_donald, and I have to say that never have I seen any death threats targeting Biden in there. Of course, there's anti-semitic stuff, there's racist stuff, but no death threats. To be fair though I'm not visiting 4chan/pol or 8chan/pol or whatever it's now called, but most of the people from there aren't real, anyway.
Lol plenty of "f*k Joe Biden" ("and f*k you for voting for him!") chants, flags, paraphernalia down here in Texas. Common as a church bell.
Nobody's worried about being censored as far as I can see.
There are news about an ongoing coup in Russia, albeit only in tabloids for now. We'll see.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/volodymyr-zelensky-warns-of-li...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20034143/chilling-signs-putin-...
Yet another one: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/8/7370930/
Can't believe 7 months into the war people still buying this kind of news. It looks like an intellectual no-fly zone has been established over the collective mind
your first link is an article from 2021 about ukraine's president.
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, and peace at arms length.
This is the reason I support Elon's idea of having a colony on mars to reduce the risk of human extinction. Any incoming missile to mars from earth would easily get noticed and deflected or blown in space itself. It's not a question of if, but when that some maniac finally presses the nuke button here on earth with no country interested in nuclear disarmament and ever increasing geopolitical tensions with mad dictators increasingly gaining power. A Mars colony will atleast increase our odds of survival, hope it happens in my lifetime.
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.
Maybe there's a method to Musk's madness... ...if the world (well, tbh, it'll be mostly the Northern Hemisphere, but it's still going to screw everyone in some manner) ends in ashes, those bunkers aren't going to be as effective at sheltering from regular people as Thiel et al think.
If you're hiding out on Mars, the peons would at least have to build a rocket to get to you when they decided to eat the rich.
> probably for centuries more likely
So… we should start trying as soon as possible.
It has always been like that.
We do. But for those making decisions the answer is probably no. It's was never about right or wrong, better or worse, it's all about interest, but definitely not much about ours.
Sadly the fact is, to some people, our lives are no more than a number on the report. When it come to politics, everything is much darker than we thought.
I see trillion rea$ons of military spendings to convince the general public that enemies are all around. Though actually starting a full scale war is stupid—there is a non-zero chance that the human civilization as we know it won't survive.
And why is this not higher... Seriously
See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-edging-closer-to-n... for other calculations back in 2017
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.
> will their nukes even work
Even if only a third if them work it’s enough. That’s the point about nukes, they provide egregious overkill.
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.
> And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.
Imperialist thinking. Why should Ukrainians accept having their country invaded? Why should they just put up with it because of some imaginings about how the world as a whole would be more stable if they bowed down to the dictator?
Screw that. Putin in a wild card, a megalomaniac. You can't reason with or even about such people. The only course with such bullying is to stamp it out.
It's their country, they should fight, but why should we?
Of course the loss of life is horrific and we should absolutely do what we can to help stop that, but apart from that moral concern, we're really helping because of the bigger picture of containing/punishing a bully, and deterring similar action from others like China, NK, etc.
Given that we're helping because of the wider implications, we should have a clear idea of what that bigger picture is, and calibrate our help in support of strategic goals.
Putin, and the Russia allied with him must fail, but that does not necessarily mean a battlefield defeat, in fact they will lose hardest through exhaustion.
The west, particularly America, too often gets sucked into the 'sport and glory and winning' of these situations, and Zelenski is understandably egging it on.
I'm a little confused on the usage of "imminent" as a term associated with high probability of an event, to the extent of requiring immediate action, and the actual "one-in-six chance of... ".
I figured it's cloaking the general background anxiety that has afflicted many in recent years.
The author is just playing number games to try to self-soothe
I've interpreted "imminent" meaning "about to occur" that is one-in-six chances of global nuclear war soon.
"I view it as highly unlikely (<10%) that Putin would accept "Vietnam" without first going nuclear, because it would almost certainly result in him being overthrown and jailed or killed."
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.
> One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability.
It is highly unlikely he has. But in the end, it is his own fault for creating that environment.
What Putin accepts or not is irrelevant - it's what the Russian state will accept that counts.
Putin is dead in 5-15 years no matter what. Russia should,could,will have 100's of years left if it starts to act 1/2 way sensibly.
So why risk getting jailed or even killed instead of just waiting for a couple of years? And you don't have to clean up someone else's mass neither.
Because anyone in a position to control the succession today will know that they may only have a short time to do it in before they personally lose the chance. The more people fall out of windows, the more they might feel the need to press the issue.
I don't know this author and I don't know where they pulled these numbers from. It comes across as "Strategic Nuclear War Planning for Dummies."
- Ukraine isn't in NATO and won't get in before this war concludes with Putin losing. No NATO, no automatic aid, and no WW3.
- The US is outspending Russia's entire defense budget by orders-of-magnitude with HIMARS for Ukraine (artillery: the god of war). It's only a matter of time before Putin's military refuses to take orders.
- Putin's generals would sooner remove him that start WW3 beyond a few tac nukes.
- Tac nukes aren't going to start WW3 except push Russia further beyond DPRK pariah status. Lots of fallout, lots of people will need to move out of the way in a hurry depending on the winds, but brinksmanship escalation by the West would be suicidal/omnicidal.
- Putin is seeking a 1989 do-over and resentment over Afghanistan, but it's going to follow a similar result. Putin is, in recent years, doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
- Putin likely has cancer since an oncologist has been following him around.
- It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. Putin's altered mental state is somewhere between 'roid-rage, low T grouchy old man, and cabin fever from living in a bunker in the Urals separated from society for too long. Unstable crazy person with nukes.
The likelihood Putin will be arrested or assassinated when he tries to order a nuclear strike seems the most likely conclusion.
Further reading: Ellsberg's thesis in book form: "Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision".
> It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him.
As much as it would be nice if it were the case, this is extremely nebulous and more likely just projection/wishful thinking.
Reasoning that works to determine the probability of drawing a spade from a deck of cards doesn’t apply to scenarios like this. We know the exact distribution of spades in a deck of cards. No one but Putin knows what he wants, or will do, or will think important tomorrow. No one knows how complex situations involving individual personalities and contingencies and unknown unknowns will play out. To play fortune teller with a veneer of math and “logic” just seems like showing off — look at me, so rational and smart and full of deep insight.
Anyone can imagine hundreds of alternatives to the six outcomes the author lists. Putin could choke on his breakfast tomorrow, or fall down a flight of stairs. Winter will hit the region soon, the soldiers might freeze and starve. Why not attach probabilities to those possibilities?
Worrying about things you cannot influence or change strikes me as deeply irrational. “We” as in “the west” can influence the Ukraine situation, but “we” don’t make collective decisions. Extrapolating from “I belong the group of people collectively referred to as America or The West” to “my opinion makes a difference and can influence events” veers into category error. Do you suppose the politicians in D.C. and the military leaders of NATO read Less Wrong posts?
The Ukraine war has many possible outcomes, none of which anyone can predict, and none of which any one person can control. History teaches that. Cherry-picking Finland, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc. as the only possible outcomes misses the unique circumstances of those conflicts and outcomes. Why not include the last Crimean War as a possible outcome? Or the one time nuclear weapons did get used in a war?
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't showed up yet".
The best chance Putin has to lose and still keep political power is for NATO to show up. I can't really imagine him successfully losing to Ukraine alone, land lease or no land lease.
It's actually the only scenario where interests align even a bit in this whole mess. Putin would like to win _something_, but at this point he's probably happy to be rid of the whole mess and still be in power. NATO would love to give him a bloody nose and see him turn back. And Ukraine would definitely love to be rid of Russia and start on reconstructing and integrating into the west.
Now, in a rational world they could just have a nice chat over tea and settle things like adults - and who knows, maybe they're actually talking this out in a zoom call, the kind we won't see declassified even in 50 years. But in the real world, the only one we see, they need to perform the dance. For Putin to retreat he needs NATO to bloody his nose. NATO needs a very good reason to do that, because the west is political and has a lot of pacifists. So he throws a nuke or three, NATO bombs the shit out of the Russian forces in Ukraine, and he finally has an excuse and internal political power to sue for peace on realistic terms. Who knows, he might even get to keep Crimea, de facto if not de jure.
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 from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.
First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible.
The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance.
To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action.
Edit:
It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time.
Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.
Firing a nuke at Ukraine is the huge escalation you’re looking for. After that, options are: nothing, slap on the wrist, gauge the response enough to prevent repetition, escalate.
The first two guarantee that any time Russia wants more land she simply needs to first place her finger on a tactical nuke button, and then take the land.
The US hasn’t said it would sink the fleet, retired generals have. Any rational negotiator will keep all options on the table and only limit them when it’s time to act.
The real outcome might well be to not attack in response, which would generate nationalist instincts in Russia and support from the murkier countries of the world. Rather isolate the hell out of Russia, turn off their internet, fling them back to the social Stone Age. Cut roads, rail, sea links. Include Ukraine into Nato asap to prevent any repetition.
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 it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
> but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.
Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.
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 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 it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.
^ 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.
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. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.
> 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.
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.
It's and has always been anti-anyone that can threat US hegemony. It was against USSR, now Russia, China and EU(Germany in particular).
So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.
I think any scale of conventional response to usage of a nuke would be proportional.
Sinking the black sea fleet feels lacking in my opinion.
Remember the story in Cuba decades ago? If USSR did not back off, US would have. This would be exactly the same story.
If the USSR had not backed off the US would not have attacked Russia.
Of course the message now and then is that they are prepared to make Russia's life much worse but threats of war are bluff.
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.
I seriously doubt US will directly engage Russia if Ukraine get nuked as it's simply doesn't make sense per the "America First" or now "America Only" playbook.
The only question really should be whether Putin dare to nuke Ukraine, if he indeed go there, end of story.
US isn't the only player with nukes though.
That's exactly why US doesn't want to get involved directly.
I wonder what China would do if Russia took things nuclear. They seem happy to watch Russia and NATO weaken each other, but I'm assuming they like a reasonably stable world, given their dependence on trade earnings for internal stability.
It's interesting to think about an alternative history where Russia joined NATO.
As Putin did want to:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
> did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter
> if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner
Equal to who? To Putin this means equal to all others combined. Certainly not those other countries that don’t matter.
The article certainly doesn't give that impression. But maybe you were there and so you have some special insight that the rest of us don't?
They were in a great position to do so right before this whole mess started.
Thing is using nukes in Ukraine probably wouldn't go very well for Putin.
The Ukrainian armed forces are pretty spread out so a nuke or two would only take out a very small percentage of them. It would then probably result in something like:
>Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-puti...
ie the US/NATO destroying Russia's forces in Ukraine and or the black sea fleet.
Hitting somewhere like London probably wouldn't go well either as there are like 55 countries against Russia so they hit a small fraction and bang goes Moscow + St Pete and Russia is pretty much done for.
Is it just me or do you also get the impression this article has triggered all troll-farms worldwide? Trying to catch the implied ideas many of the posts are trying to implant is just a drag.
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.
> If Russia launches a missile, it’s a 50-50 that it won’t just turn around and come right back down on them.
Up until very recently the Russians were carrying American astronauts up to the ISS after the shuttle program was abandoned. Maybe not all their rockets are maintained properly, but the ones that were are highly likely to work.
Outright denial that the threat exists at all is just infantile levels of analysis that I expect from reddit.
What's with all this underestimating.
If Russians can do something that's rockets. Their space rockets have 98% success rate. Land ones are probably at 99%.
"The Soyuz rocket was first launched in November 1963 and has since flown more than 1500 times. It is one of the most reliable launch vehicles, with a 98% success rate."[0]
[0]: https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/31036-launch-vehicle
Mh... A site named lesswrong who can't be seen without JS...
...seems false? At least with noscript on I can still see the site. (disclaimer: I work on the site. There's definitely reduced functionality if you don't have JS enabled, but surprised/confused if you can't see stuff at all)
That's what I get now https://i.ibb.co/XXch7ZL/2022-10-10-133602-1920x1080-scrot.p...
No Firefox reader support, nothing on the page, effectively the cause is that TPRB blocker block forum.effectivealtruism.org + NoScript blocking lesswrong.com js but anyway, without allowing the third party domain AND the main JS I can't see anything...
> I'd love to hear your thoughts both on this risk modeling framework
I guess I don't see the word qualitative the same way the author does. To me "qualitative" implies inputs like depth, thought, introspection, care, conscientiousness, reflection, things like that.
Anyway, here are some thoughts on the topic and article, based on personality theory, one of the areas I like to think about and hack on:
- Putin thinks of threats as qualitative solutions. He does not think of actions being nearly as valuable. He continually demonstrates that his threats are calculated far more deeply and conscientiously than his actions.
- Putin thinks (likely subconsciously) that actually taking actions (like initiating nuclear warfare) is a quantitative solution that is shallow, irritating and effectively risky to his bluffer's poker strategy. You don't make a Russia out of the equivalent of Italy's resources by _showing_ what you can do with your stuff, after all.
- Putin is in a holistic position that makes nuclear war a far more valuable threat than action. This is partially due to his internal psychology, because he prefers diplomatic and political puzzles to outright warfare. The outright warriors are more like the ones winning this conflict on the ground right now.
- Putin views direct negotiation itself as weakness. Negotiation is conducted by actions that threaten further action, but the planning of negotiation in such a form is where the energy goes.
- Putin would rather not work on conflict at a global scale. His best tools, perspectives, and allies are all local-scale.
- Putin is directly calling many, if not most of the shots, and is effectively in control of the Russian political character on the global stage.
- Putin doesn't think in terms of escalate or not. He thinks in terms of solving puzzles and offering puzzles to be solved in return. (The same is not true of Zelensky or Biden, which is very important here. You have a battle of psychological perspectives, with force good/bad in the West aligned vs politics cunning/weak in Russia. Dangerous match with no default winner [1])
IMO Putin likely believes he has 1,000 strategies that are more effective than triggering something as generic as nuclear war. However, some of them may involve "mysterious" limited nuclear war, for example. In fact I think one of his most effective strategies could be a slow escalation of radiation exposure events via various means, accompanied by denial and diplomatic go-betweens.
Also, I noticed that like most of us, the author writes in such a way as to reveal their personal preferences. A common blind spot for authors with similar preferences is that they will work very hard to answer a near-random question and then spend lots of build time on internal logic.
This then sets up a de facto misdirection fallacy: Look into the question, but don't question the question. This is a particularly tenacious fallacy because there is no other-hand alternative being offered in any case, and humans aren't generally comfortable working with the unknown. So questions, particularly those which are interesting for some set of reasons, can cause big problems just because other questions aren't being uncovered and discussed with the same resources.
Qualitatively impressive internals and a neat model are one possible result of this setup for sure, but in that way this is still a Jedi mind trick the author may not even be aware of. So, was there a question-selection framework? How do we know this question is worth spending time on? What are some other questions that are interesting, for example questions that may help tease out new models for a successful response to the threat? Or are there types of questions that model the situation better?
And this doesn't get into some other issues like the internal terms used and their graphed relationship. A lot of assumptions are made, figures are pulled, and details left out.
Qualitatively it's an interesting article to read for sure, and I wouldn't criticize it too harshly when it at least meets that bar and comes with a graph.
But it doesn't do much for a common dichotomy here, i.e. do we continue to act in what is assumed to be an escalation, or do we deescalate and hope that the result is better than what we are supposed to think is the only alternative to deescalation?
(Dichotomies like escalate and de- are pretty messed up, really.)
1. I do think that the Biden-Zelensky relational support system is extremely risky on the side of force. These are both highly emotive, force-on-force personalities. They may stumble right into Putin's blind spot and force his hand by a combination of his own personal, embarrassing weakness in the areas of lack of care and lack of suitable employed force, and their own combined, nuclear-critical capability for turning passionate moral crusade into political gaffe. God I hope I'm wrong about this.
Nice comment. To your point about the author's blindspot/preferences, I think it's fair to say that the LessWrong community definitely has a very specific worldview that is bringing lots of implicit assumptions to the discussion. I generally like reading these "rationalist" analyses, but would love to see a critique of their worldview as well.
Ug, nuclear war is a civilization ending event and everyone, even Putin, knows this and does not want this. The chances are therefore 0%.
You're assuming Putin is rational. That's not a good assumption. Putin is elderly, likely in very bad health or possibly dying of cancer, and wants to make his mark on the world. In addition, if he loses in Ukraine, he'll likely be assassinated, so he has absolutely nothing to lose here. There's not really a good reason he wouldn't launch armageddon. We can only hope that his underlings don't want to get themselves and all other Russians exterminated in nuclear fire and will refuse to carry out his orders.
It would be a fun way to discover that all those black programs which continued after the nuclear weapon development formally ended in the 80’s really did result in Kessler satellites, particle beams, and clean nukes.
I think there's a one-in-one chance of what you say happening because it's already started.