Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Nuclear ‘deterrence’

We are meant to accept that having nukes on both sides preserves peace in a way that wasn’t possible before their invention. Turns out, as Russia has proved, that not only do they not prevent conventional warfare, they actually help prolong it. Well that’s good isn’t it?

I think both sides having nuclear weapons was supposed to prevent nuclear war.

I'm not convinced that anyone said or even thought that it would prevent conventional war. The US, for example, has barely had 2 years in a row without being at war since 1945.

Goethe Cash 07 Jun 23 10:36

as Russia has proved, that not only do they not prevent conventional warfare, they actually help prolong it. Well that’s good isn’t it?

_________________________________________________________________

not sure Russia has proved that

pretty sure the only thing Russia has proved is that carefully stage manged dictatorships aren't nearly as strong as they make out on their twitter pages 

They don't preserve peace but they have certainly (at least so far!) prevented localised disputes from escalating into all out war between major powers. If it wasn't for the existence of nuclear weapons it would be hard to see how Ukraine wouldn't have turned into a hot war between Russia (and allies) and the West.  

nuclear weapons never stopped peripheral skirmishes with proxy combatants, like Ukraine, Vietnam, Korea etc.  What they have stopped is an all out war between the super powers blocks that would have likely followed soon after WW2 and indeed could have happened over Ukraine without nuclear weapons and at various points in between

The virtually guarantee territorial integrity of any state having them.  No-one's going to invade North Korea for instance.  Means regime change etc has to come from within, influenced by indirect outside influence of course.

Nuclear weapons arent supposed to be good or prevent all wars.

The idea is that they are just less bad than speaking Russian, saluting Putin and having your daughters working as prostitutes for fat Russian oligarchs. Or Chinese of American oligarchs for that matter.

“Same way we invaded France 79 years ago 

By sea “

Davos, m7, they can’t even get across a river, let alone a cold, rough, tidal sea of over 12 miles

None of that is new. This is 40 years old:

Chief Scientific Advisor: Prime Minister, you believe in the nuclear deterrent?

Jim Hacker PM: Oh, yes.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Why?

Jim Hacker PM: Pardon?

Chief Scientific Advisor: Why?

Jim Hacker PM: Because it deters.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Whom?

Jim Hacker PM: Pardon?

Chief Scientific Advisor: Whom? Whom does it deter?

Jim Hacker PM: The Russians from attacking us.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Why?

Jim Hacker PM: Pardon?

Chief Scientific Advisor: Why?

Jim Hacker PM: They know if they launched an attack, I'd press the button.

Chief Scientific Advisor: You would?

Jim Hacker PM: Well, wouldn't I?

Chief Scientific Advisor: Well, would you?

Jim Hacker PM: At the last resort, yes, I certainly would. Well, I think I certainly would. Yes.

Chief Scientific Advisor: And what is the last resort?

Jim Hacker PM: If the Russians invaded western Europe.

Chief Scientific Advisor: You only have 12 hours to decide, so you're saying the last resort is the first response?

Jim Hacker PM: Am I?

Chief Scientific Advisor: You don't need to worry. Why should the Russians annex the whole of Europe? They can't even control Afghanistan. No, if they try anything, it will be salami tactics.

Jim Hacker PM: Salami tactics?

Chief Scientific Advisor: Slice by slice. One small piece at a time. So will you press the button if they invade West Berlin?

Jim Hacker PM: It all depends.

Chief Scientific Advisor: On what? Scenario one. Riots in West Berlin, buildings in flames. East German fire brigade crosses the border to help. Would you press the button? The East German police come with them. The button? Then some troops, more troops just for riot control, they say. And then the East German troops are replaced by Russian troops. Button? Then the Russian troops don't go. They are invited to stay to support civilian administration. The civilian administration closes roads and Tempelhof Airport. Now you press the button?

Jim Hacker PM: I need time to think about it.

Chief Scientific Advisor: You have. 12 hours.

Jim Hacker PM: Have I? You're inventing this.

Chief Scientific Advisor: You are Prime Minister today. The phone might ring now from NATO headquarters.

[Phone rings]

Bernard: Hello? Yes. NATO headquarters, Prime Minister.

[PM gasps]

Bernard: Can you address their annual conference in April?

Jim Hacker PM: I thought I could. I'm not so sure now. Yes.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Scenario two. The Russian army accidentally on purpose cross the West German frontier. - Is that the last resort?

Jim Hacker PM: No.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Right, scenario three. Suppose the Russians have invaded West Germany, Belgium, Holland, France? Suppose their tanks and troops have reached the English Channel and are poised to invade? - Is that the last resort?

Jim Hacker PM: No.

Chief Scientific Advisor: Why not?

Jim Hacker PM: We'd only fight a nuclear war to defend ourselves. That would be committing suicide!

Chief Scientific Advisor: So what is the last resort? Piccadilly? Watford Gap service station? The Reform Club?

Jim Hacker PM: Maybe the nuclear deterrent makes no sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4

And what GC said. If the shit really hit the fan there is no way in hell the US would risk a single red or blue state to protect Airstrip 1. 

I very much doubt this, as evidenced by Taiwan.  The US are living proof of the accuracy of a maxim of mine: If you're going to fight a war, do it in someone else's country.

The US would be utter fools not to fight for the UK. 

Sod that 

We use nukes to ensure we don't get invaded 

And then if we do get invaded (which we won't) we kill everyone with minutes 

Sod getting conscripted and then dying of dissentry scared out of my mind surrounded by 2m other sweaty smelly blokes 

Warren Taiwan evidences nothing - sabre rattling proves nothing, treaties prove nothing,  China have to actually invade before it is put to the test - will the US declare war on a major nuclear power?   I have serious doubts and in some respects do not blame them.  If China and Russia decide to take a gamble that the US would rather let them invade smaller alliance countries close to them than start MAD they may well prove correct - better to live in a world where you have lost a bit of face to the enemy than to be obliterated off the face of the earth.    What China and Russia would not gamble on is invading a country with its own nuclear deterrent because they know without doubt it will be used.

I sort of agree RR but obviously that has to be balanced out against the risks of nuclear proliferation on basis the more countries that have an independent nuclear capability the higher the risk they will fall into the hands of a mad man (it will be a man) who will use them

The issue with the Yes, Prime Minister salami slice quote above is that it presents the west as neutered raspberries who can either let Russia do what it wants or nuke the world. As we've seen with Ukraine, there are ways of blunting a russian advance without needing to resort to instant sunshine. 

The battle for Taiwan would not necessarily escalate into a full war either. A short and costly battle for all parties, isolated to the straits and Taiwanese lands is most likely with no obvious winner and a diplomatic reset on which the terms depend on if the PLA military kit performs as advertised or like the Russians. 

RR every skirmish since 1945 has been by proxy - I think the assumption on all sides is that a direct military conflict between super powers would lead to nuclear war.

If it weren't for Ukraine, and her willingness to bleed for us by proxy, we'd have been exactly in the Yes Prime Minister sort of situation in a few years' time, after further cuts in conventional forces / gearing everything to fighting asymmetrical wars.

RR every skirmish since 1945 has been by proxy - I think the assumption on all sides is that a direct military conflict between super powers would lead to nuclear war.

I don't disagree but that's not in conflict with the point I was making. 

If it weren't for Ukraine, and her willingness to bleed for us by proxy, we'd have been exactly in the Yes Prime Minister sort of situation

It is hard to say for sure, but given the support from NATO countries for a non-member like Ukraine it seems quite likely that NATO would stand firm if a member state was invaded. 

Also, Poland alone would make mincemeat of this Russian army. It would be laughably one sided. 

"It is hard to say for sure, but given the support from NATO countries for a non-member like Ukraine it seems quite likely that NATO would stand firm if a member state was invaded. "

That would mean a hot war and possible nuclear armageddon.   I don't think you can make any assumptions about that.

The Yes Prime Minister quote above is amusing but also important.

Try replaying it - but reversing the advance as it might be seen by a Russian leader of the same generation.

I despise Putin and support the war in Ukraine. But realpolitik is important and our policy makers should reflect upon poor old Jim Hacker with his finger hovering on the button.

That would mean a hot war and possible nuclear armageddon.   I don't think you can make any assumptions about that.

This is untrue. If Russia invaded a non-nuclear NATO country e.g. Poland there is nothing that would stop NATO from providing the same support they have provided to Ukraine. People read a lot into Article 5 that isn't necessarily there. The trickier bit would be how the NATO troops stationed in Poland would respond and if they were directly attacked.

Let's be clear though, if Russia bombed a US airbase in Poland or Germany we aren't talking salami slicing.

The better theme for the OP would be something along the lines that possessing nukes and throwing traditional policy of never uttering that fact out the window, let alone threatening their use against a country you’ve invaded and their allies, even if most would assume you’re bluffing (even if you go on tele to say you definitely aren’t bluffing) means you can get away with almost anything when it comes to war and especially war crimes. Notes probably taken in Tehran

"This is untrue. If Russia invaded a non-nuclear NATO country e.g. Poland there is nothing that would stop NATO from providing the same support they have provided to Ukraine."

I think if NATO did not provide direct military support (not just equipment) that would be a breach of the treaty.

The biggest deterrent for Putin is the fear of being utterly embarrassed when his poorly maintained and potentially non-existent missiles fail to actually make it out of Russia.

Guy, the wording of Article 5 is very loose and requires member states to assist with

"such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

There is no compulsion for NATO members to do more than is necessary to beat back the invasion of the member state that has been attacked. So as I said above, they could do exactly what they have done to help Ukraine except most NATO members already have modern weapons systems so there would be no issue with supplying them with more from an escalation or training perspective.

It is very "Twitter" to think Article 5 means a full NATO mobilisation with F35s, M1 Abrams and US Marines storming across Europe.

Royalty.  The Ukraine has been occupied for almost 18 months, and the only help it is getting is weapons.  I think we would be pretty disappointed in the NATO response if we got invaded and all we got sent was weapons and no direct military assistance forcing us to fight a war of attrition for years.  That is not the understanding of the level of assistance NATO members will give each other - "an attack on one is an attack on all".

I doubt we will find out Guy because Russia's army has been smashed by Ukraine with NATO support and they won't be in a position to do any more mass invasions for a long long time hopefully.

We aren't really disagreeing, NATO would do what is needed to defend their treaty ally, but as we have seen from the last 18 months, most NATO members wouldn't need much more than material support to see off this Russian shambles.

The idea of them invading the UK is hilarious by the way. Yes our army is tiny and ill equipped, but how are they going to get here? The Russian navy is a complete joke. 

we are talking bout risks over decades perhaps even centuries RR, Russia may not be in a position to invade us now, but who knows in the future?

I think our point of disgreement is that if Ukraine were in NATO the assistance being provided would not fulfill the treaty obligations in my view. 

Sadly for Russia their prediction were that NATO would stand by and do nothing. Instead they have helped Ukraine and shown what it might look like if they had a go at a nearby NATO member.

I think we are rather going around in circles here though

Agreed, I think where we differ is in our understanding of what Article 5 means in reality and given it has only been invoked once before and that was after 9/11 so very different circumstances, we won't be able to agree. 

Yes, although it is slightly more subtle than that - I suspect that the NATO response to a NATO member being attacked by a nuclear super power may very well mean what you say "in reality"  but I dont think that is a fulfillment of treaty obligations

The nukes may have been based in silos in Ukraine, but most of the targeting and command/control would likely have been done in Moscow or elsewhere in Russia, by personnel of what would have become the Russian (rather than Ukrainian) armed forces post Soviet Union.  

IIRC the Ukrainian air force inherited some Blackjacks or similar bombers, but gave them up as being too costly to run - keeping ICBMs viable would have been, too.  

 

PS. I'm now imagining Utah or Montana becoming independent and having "its own" Minutemans .. an alarming thought 

yes and I think given Russia has now been on Ukranian territory for 18 months and shows no sign of leaving the obligation you quote would not have been fulfilled had Ukraine been in NATO as the security of NATO territory quite plainly would not have been restored and the situation still looks very much like stalemate.

Warren Taiwan evidences nothing - sabre rattling proves nothing, treaties prove nothing,  China have to actually invade before it is put to the test - will the US declare war on a major nuclear power?   I have serious doubts and in some respects do not blame them.  If China and Russia decide to take a gamble that the US would rather let them invade smaller alliance countries close to them than start MAD they may well prove correct - better to live in a world where you have lost a bit of face to the enemy than to be obliterated off the face of the earth.    What China and Russia would not gamble on is invading a country with its own nuclear deterrent because they know without doubt it will be used.

The US has been as clear as you could realistically ask it given it is trying to maintain dialogue with China, that it will fight for Taiwan.  Leaving that aside, the Japan/SKorea/Taiwan line is the US's first line of defence in the East barring effective Chinese access to the Pacific, and only a strategic simpleton would ever give it up.  I very much doubt the US would declare war against China, I think that sort of thing between nuclear superpowers is probably a thing of the past, but would call it something else and make it very clear that military action would be confined to the aim of defending/recovering Taiwan only -  though military operations against mainland China would be inevitable, these would be limited to raids and bombardment.

This position on Taiwan shows pretty clearly that the US understands what is best for it - if threatened from the East it is far better for it to fight in Taiwan (or Korea, and then Japan and the Philippines), so if threatened in the West it will naturally take its best option which is to fight and defeat its enemy in mainland Europe and if Europe falls then in the UK.   Not doing these things exposes US territory to direct threat, which is something the US has spent a massive amount of blood and treasure on avoiding since 1945. 

Ah apologies Guy. Unrelated, how have you not heard of ocarina of time?

 

Dunno, just never played it I guess - perhaps it came out during a dip in my interesting in video games-  I have of course heard of Zelda.

Join the discussion

Login Register