|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 13:03:30 GMT
This brics thing is starting to turn into the nightmare scenario I predicted when the sanctions started.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 6, 2023 14:30:31 GMT
This BRICS thing is a fucking joke full of dodgy fucking dictators and kleptocrats.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 14:54:54 GMT
I think that's a bit of surface analysis.
Do you really care that your bank is a dictatorship so long as they deal honestly with you and don't close your account to try to force you to trans your children?
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 6, 2023 15:25:58 GMT
The banks are another issue entirely and worthy of their own thread. They should be apolitical. It's for the state to decide to revoke banking rights. Take a drug dealer as an example.
But, as I say, worthy of its own thread that.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 15:30:00 GMT
The banks are another issue entirely and worthy of their own thread. They should be apolitical. It's for the state to decide to revoke banking rights. Take a drug dealer as an example. But, as I say, worthy of its own thread that. It's analogous. Part of the value of a financial system is that the rules don't change because it disagrees with you. In the world there is no 'state'
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 6, 2023 22:05:13 GMT
Only against a direct nuclear attack on the US. America isn't going nuclear winter if Vlad uses tactical nukes in Ukraine. What do you think the world will do if a nuclear state violates the Non proliferation treaty and uses nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state?
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 6, 2023 22:25:06 GMT
Only against a direct nuclear attack on the US. America isn't going nuclear winter if Vlad uses tactical nukes in Ukraine. What do you think the world will do if a nuclear state violates the Non proliferation treaty and uses nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state? Huff and puff then do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 22:36:27 GMT
If you retaliate, you either make a further response more or less likely, depending on something or other.
A branch of mathematics was invented to try to deal deal with such questions rigorousness - not that it helped that much.
Do it in your head. Imagine Russia nuked Warsaw and you are advising the prime-minister on the UK's response. If you bomb Leningrad, you can probably forget about Birmingham and several major ports - ie the population of the UK would likely start to starve within weeks
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 22:39:48 GMT
oops Saint Petersburg*
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 6, 2023 22:56:07 GMT
If you retaliate, you either make a further response more or less likely, depending on something or other. A branch of mathematics was invented to try to deal deal with such questions rigorousness - not that it helped that much. Do it in your head. Imagine Russia nuked Warsaw and you are advising the prime-minister on the UK's response. If you bomb Leningrad, you can probably forget about Birmingham and several major ports - ie the population of the UK would likely start to starve within weeks In truth, we don't know, but there is of course, the theory of MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction), which has meant nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 50+ years. There are two logical responses to a nuclear attack on NATO. 1) Complete and unconditoinal surrender. 2) A full nuclear strike in retaliation. If Russia nukes Warsaw, NATO is unlikely to respond by nuking Leningrad. MAD doctrine means that you won't get a slow escalation with nuclear weapons, beacuse in doing so, you lose the ability to retaliate. The reason for this is that your enemy will logically target your ability to launch further nuclear attacks. Russia knows full well that should it attack NATO with a nuclear weapon, NATO will respond and remove as much of Russia's ability to wage further nuclear conflict. Knowing this, under MAD doctrine, Russia won't simply attack Warsaw, it has to strike at as much of NATO as it intends to, because its unlikely to get a '2nd' shot' - meaning, it will launch as many of it's 3,000+ nukes as it can. Similarly, NATO's only response is to do similar, at least according to theory of Mutally Assured Destruction. With the current US administration, I highly doubt they'll pick unconditional surrender. Unlike Europe which will be devestated, much of the US will survive a Russian nuclear strike, the same can not be said for Russia or China. If you're going to attack NATO (or Russia), you go all in, or not at all. Nuclear Weapons are one hell of a drug.
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 6, 2023 22:58:33 GMT
What do you think the world will do if a nuclear state violates the Non proliferation treaty and uses nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state? Huff and puff then do nothing. In terms of Vlad he can pose the hard man routine all he likes but deep down he knows that he relies greatly on his partnership with China,if you can really define it a partnership because he is very much the junior and must know that. The idea he will use nukes against Ukraine might figure but it’s not something h can survive.
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 6, 2023 23:02:06 GMT
Huff and puff then do nothing. In terms of Vlad he can pose the hard man routine all he likes but deep down he knows that he relies greatly on his partnership with China,if you can really define it a partnership because he is very much the junior and must know that. The idea he will use nukes against Ukraine might figure but it’s not something h can survive. This probably strikes true. The power in the East is not Russia, it is China. Russia is as much a poodle to China as the UK is to the USA, Putin just hasn't realised it yet.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 23:07:54 GMT
If you retaliate, you either make a further response more or less likely, depending on something or other. A branch of mathematics was invented to try to deal deal with such questions rigorousness - not that it helped that much. Do it in your head. Imagine Russia nuked Warsaw and you are advising the prime-minister on the UK's response. If you bomb Leningrad, you can probably forget about Birmingham and several major ports - ie the population of the UK would likely start to starve within weeks There are two logical responses to a nuclear attack on NATO. 1) Complete and unconditoinal surrender. 2) A full nuclear strike in retaliation. Some of what you say is correct but you are presenting a false dichotomy. The value of a 'proportional' nuclear response is dubious - in fact, so dubious my guess would be nobody would consider it worthwhile. With that off the table, the remaining options are rather stark My guess would be that a reckless actor could bomb a member without nuclear retaliation perhaps up to twice (two small attacks) - after that, the whole thing becomes a wash. It would probably depend on how confident the NATO side felt about their ability to detect and respond to an all out attack - or more precisely, how they felt the other side felt about their ability.
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 6, 2023 23:12:35 GMT
I shouldn't have to point out that nuclear war is not proportional.
There is no 'proportional' response in a nuclear war because in your scenario ("nuking Warsaw"), using a nuclear weapon against a civilian population center of just under 2,000,000 people as an aggressor is in no way, 'proportional'.
Regarding 'The remaining options are rather stark' - this is a huge understatement.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 6, 2023 23:27:04 GMT
I shouldn't have to point out that nuclear war is not proportional. There is no 'proportional' response in a nuclear war because in your scenario ("nuking Warsaw"), using a nuclear weapon against a civilian population center of just under 2,000,000 people as an aggressor is in no way, 'proportional'. Regarding 'The remaining options are rather stark' - this is a huge understatement. The secret to our survival in the cold war was huge comprises that dealt with huge, unpleasant realities. The compromises were designed to prevent that being a realistic possibility - ie both sides with bombs had something (enough) out of the deal, that such a course of action would be against their interests. Such a balancing act requires intelligence
|
|