Discussion Does a nuclear deterrent actually deter

mikeymikec · Wednesday at 9:57 AM

I didn't want to de-rail the Israel thread, but in light of the whole "does Iran have nukes" topic, there was a secondary point being made that if Ukraine had nukes then they wouldn't have been invaded in the first place, which people there seem to be in general agreement about.

I have three general feelings on the topic:

1) The notion of spending billions on a weapon that you will literally never use is just mind-boggling to me, partly because the use of nuclear weapons is a stunningly bad idea in pretty much every plausible scenario (e.g. mutually assured destruction) and at absolutely best such a decision no matter the circumstances would be considered as highly controversial, and partly because there are plenty of causes in a given society that are far more deserving.

2) Belligerent arseholes will always be belligerent arseholes, ie. if Ukraine/Iran had nukes then Russia/Israel would still find a way to be the arsehole. Nuclear weapons didn't stop decades of cold war conflict either.

3) Largely as a 'therefore' from points 1 and 2, I would be extremely surprised if a leader authorised the use of nukes in my lifetime, no matter how 'reasonable' the circumstances were.

Obligatory 'Yes, Minister' clip, which I've always felt to be part of my opinion about the nuclear deterrent:

The only counter-argument I can think of is that the kind of fucking morons who want to start wars rather than fix shit are like the Pakled in the Star Trek franchise who might be deterred at the first obstacle being that their potential target has nukes, and maybe by extension a tonne of other political powers in the potential-invader country are thinking that they don't want to experience a nuclear shampoo at any point soon. Maybe it discourages those who would start wars purely for ego-related reasons.

Is ego always a major factor in the decision to start a war? Therefore is my 'moron' counter-argument the one with the most weight?

K1052 · Wednesday at 10:04 AM

How many nuclear armed states have fallen to outside pressures since the development of the bomb?

First use of nuclear weapons against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons is suicide which is why it hasn't occurred. This does not preclude limited conventional conflict between nuclear states via proxies or even directly.

Hans Gruber · Wednesday at 10:08 AM

There is a nuclear proliferation treaty. Similar to the non proliferation treaty but somewhat in reverse. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend but an ally. Thus, I must arm my ally who was never my friend or enemy. Some arm nations with nukes for sport. It's all part of chaos theory.

Greenman · Wednesday at 11:43 AM

It's not just having the weapons, it's having a method of getting them exactly where you want them and the other sides ability to impede that delivery.

[DHT]Osiris · Wednesday at 12:33 PM

It deters as long as your enemy cares more about protecting themselves/their people/their economy/their way of life than they do killing your people/economy/way of life. If that see-saw goes the other way, they'll launch at you regardless of the consequences.

HomerJS · Wednesday at 12:58 PM

Question: If Ukraine still hade nukes would Russia have started that war?

That answers the question.

fskimospy · Wednesday at 2:16 PM

HomerJS said:
Question: If Ukraine still hade nukes would Russia have started that war?

That answers the question.

Exactly. Really there's no clearer object lesson than the Axis of Evil. Of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the first one we destroyed, the second we are bombing and threatening to destroy, and the third engages in an exchange of nice letters.

mikeymikec · Wednesday at 2:51 PM

HomerJS said:
Question: If Ukraine still hade nukes would Russia have started that war?

That answers the question.

I personally think there's a good chance that Russia would have tried something on Ukraine, perhaps not full-scale invasion but something harder to justify the use of nukes in response.

Or maybe Putin is a garden-variety bully and would have chosen another former soviet country as his punching bag.

It's not obvious to me at least what Putin's motivations are for attacking Ukraine, but perhaps it was part of a larger plan to disrupt Europe (e.g. its food supply).

K1052 · Wednesday at 2:56 PM

mikeymikec said:
It's not obvious to me at least what Putin's motivations are for attacking Ukraine

He thought it would be easy too kill the government, install a stooge, and bring Ukraine back into his sphere of power. Bit off more than he could chew.

mikeymikec · Wednesday at 3:11 PM

K1052 said:
He thought it would be easy too kill the government, install a stooge, and bring Ukraine back into his sphere of power. Bit off more than he could chew.

If it's as simple as that, then it would have been logical to call off the invasion years ago, or at least draw some line in the sand and declare victory, whatever it takes to save face at home.

I should also point out that Putin has a grip on America - a nuclear nation - with a lot more finesse than what he's done to Ukraine. I wouldn't quite say that he has America by the balls, but pretty fundamentally compromised. I'm surprised that he hasn't pulled some strings to have all the restrictions on his country relaxed, but perhaps there's a longer game being played here, maybe America needs to be kept in a neutered state.

K1052 · Wednesday at 3:19 PM

mikeymikec said:
If it's as simple as that, then it would have been logical to call off the invasion years ago, or at least draw some line in the sand and declare victory, whatever it takes to save face at home.

He wants to destroy Ukraine as an independent country and simply does not care what it takes to accomplish that goal. The reason? To satisfy his own personal grudges and ambitions. If millions of Russians have to die for his aims that's what is going to happen.

nOOky · Wednesday at 5:04 PM

I suspect that there would be American/Nato boots on the ground in Ukraine if not for Putin's bloviating about using nukes. The war would be over a few months after it started. Instead, we continue to grapple with the threats of nukes that will likely never actually be used. In response to Russia's threat to arm Iran with a nuke indirectly Nato should threaten to arm Ukraine. At some point you just gotta say fuck it and call these assholesabluff.

manly · Wednesday at 5:37 PM

OP is a little confused. Nuclear deterrence means nuclear powers understand MAD, and are deterred from using strategic nukes against each other. Iran now understands with total clarity that it needs a nuclear arsenal to avoid being punked like Iraq. See also: Libya (punked) and North Korea (not punked).

Putin has publicly stated his motivations often: he considers Ukraine part of the Russian heartland and wishes to pull little brother back into the fold.

As @K1052 explained, nuclear powers still can have conflicts with "conventional" weapons. One of the big fears is that India and Pakistan will come to blows, and perhaps one side gets kicked in the mouth too hard and panics by escalating to nukes.

Brovane · Wednesday at 5:48 PM

manly said:
OP is a little confused. Nuclear deterrence means nuclear powers understand MAD, and are deterred from using strategic nukes against each other. Iran now understands with total clarity that it needs a nuclear arsenal to avoid being punked like Iraq. See also: Libya (punked) and North Korea (not punked).

Putin has publicly stated his motivations often: he considers Ukraine part of the Russian heartland and wishes to pull little brother back into the fold.

As @K1052 explained, nuclear powers still can have conflicts with "conventional" weapons. One of the big fears is that India and Pakistan will come to blows, and perhaps one side gets kicked in the mouth too hard and panics by escalating to nukes.

Notice however that Pakistan and India when they have a conflict it is very limited. Them having nukes results in some bombing etc's and then quick de-escalation.

Muse · Wednesday at 10:14 PM

K1052 said:
How many nuclear armed states have fallen to outside pressures since the development of the bomb?

First use of nuclear weapons against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons is suicide which is why it hasn't occurred. This does not preclude limited conventional conflict between nuclear states via proxies or even directly.

Which is why nuclear arms aren't particularly useful. But they are extremely dangerous. We live in strange times.

hal2kilo · Wednesday at 10:16 PM

Greenman said:
It's not just having the weapons, it's having a method of getting them exactly where you want them and the other sides ability to impede that delivery.

I spent many a year maintaining equipment and collecting data to support modeling readiness and reliability in support of the SWS program. If you don't have a credible threat, you invalidate MAD (mutually assured destruction).

mikeymikec · Thursday at 4:05 AM

K1052 said:
He wants to destroy Ukraine as an independent country and simply does not care what it takes to accomplish that goal. The reason? To satisfy his own personal grudges and ambitions. If millions of Russians have to die for his aims that's what is going to happen.

IMO it reads like a poor work of fiction* and fails to factor in the somewhat larger picture, which in short is that Putin's position internally can only have been weakened by this conflict just as he has weakened Russia.

* - I'm not saying it's wrong/impossible btw, just expressing my scepticism.

nOOky said:
I suspect that there would be American/Nato boots on the ground in Ukraine if not for Putin's bloviating about using nukes.

Which goes to show that nuclear powers can get punked just as easily as non-nuclear ones.

pmv · Thursday at 6:00 AM

fskimospy said:
Exactly. Really there's no clearer object lesson than the Axis of Evil. Of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the first one we destroyed, the second we are bombing and threatening to destroy, and the third engages in an exchange of nice letters.

I think recent history has pretty much made the case that the nuclear deterrent works. There was a time when I wasn't sure about it, but at this point I'm convinced. The big problem with the UK's 'nuclear deterrent' though is that it's far from clear it's independent of the US. Which, if one day it has to be pointed in their direction, could prove a trifle awkward.

I've never been able to find a clear answer as to how 'independent' Trident actually is, but I get the sense it would be impossible to even threaten to use it without US co-operation. Which, as it's quite possible the US will one day be the source of the threat that needs to be deterred, seems a bit of a flaw.

pmv · Thursday at 6:08 AM

mikeymikec said:
I personally think there's a good chance that Russia would have tried something on Ukraine, perhaps not full-scale invasion but something harder to justify the use of nukes in response.

Or maybe Putin is a garden-variety bully and would have chosen another former soviet country as his punching bag.

It's not obvious to me at least what Putin's motivations are for attacking Ukraine, but perhaps it was part of a larger plan to disrupt Europe (e.g. its food supply).

It's still a bit unclear to me. It might well be as simple as "Putin is nuts" (and he's representative of a strand of nuttery among the Russian elites). He just seems to be driven by a kind of intense Russian nationalism, and reestablishing the extent of the Russian Empire seems to be a point of pride with him. There's also traditional Russian paranoia about being attacked from the West.

There was also an argument by that Peter Zeihan guy on YouTube (someone I _cannot_ work out if he merits being taken at all seriously or not) that geography means Russia wants control of much of Ukraine to secure reliable all-weather links from Russia to the Caucasus.

K1052 · Thursday at 7:58 AM

mikeymikec said:
IMO it reads like a poor work of fiction* and fails to factor in the somewhat larger picture, which in short is that Putin's position internally can only have been weakened by this conflict just as he has weakened Russia.

* - I'm not saying it's wrong/impossible btw, just expressing my scepticism.

It's a dictatorship and the Russians at large have no taste for overthrowing him even as he sends them to die by the bushel. He consolidated control long ago. The most likely thing to happen is that another strongman does him in while his security services largely stand by and watch. Almost happened with Prigozhin who found him self a good chunk of the way to Moscow but got cold feet.

pmv said:
It's still a bit unclear to me. It might well be as simple as "Putin is nuts" (and he's representative of a strand of nuttery among the Russian elites). He just seems to be driven by a kind of intense Russian nationalism, and reestablishing the extent of the Russian Empire seems to be a point of pride with him. There's also traditional Russian paranoia about being attacked from the West.

Yes, Putin is nuts about this in particular. It is incredibly irrational unless viewed through his own perspective on Russian imperialism and his right to conduct it on his neighbors. That does not extend however to doing something that could get the Kremlin vaporized along with himself because he doesn't want to die.

fskimospy · Thursday at 9:18 AM

pmv said:
I think recent history has pretty much made the case that the nuclear deterrent works. There was a time when I wasn't sure about it, but at this point I'm convinced. The big problem with the UK's 'nuclear deterrent' though is that it's far from clear it's independent of the US. Which, if one day it has to be pointed in their direction, could prove a trifle awkward.

I've never been able to find a clear answer as to how 'independent' Trident actually is, but I get the sense it would be impossible to even threaten to use it without US co-operation. Which, as it's quite possible the US will one day be the source of the threat that needs to be deterred, seems a bit of a flaw.

I hadn’t heard that. Why would it not be possible to fire Trident missiles without US cooperation? I get that they are built here but the UK already has plenty of them and presumably also has at least some spare parts. It doesn’t rely on GPS so the US couldn’t disable it that way either.

Unlike Ukraine where long term supplies are necessary, nuclear wars should be very short - at least the nuclear part, haha, so you only really need to be able to fire them once.

Muse · Thursday at 9:18 AM

pmv said:
It's still a bit unclear to me. It might well be as simple as "Putin is nuts" (and he's representative of a strand of nuttery among the Russian elites). He just seems to be driven by a kind of intense Russian nationalism, and reestablishing the extent of the Russian Empire seems to be a point of pride with him. There's also traditional Russian paranoia about being attacked from the West.

There was also an argument by that Peter Zeihan guy on YouTube (someone I _cannot_ work out if he merits being taken at all seriously or not) that geography means Russia wants control of much of Ukraine to secure reliable all-weather links from Russia to the Caucasus.

Peter Zeihan likely is overconfident of his analysis at times but I have no concept at all that he's not to be taken seriously.

fskimospy · Thursday at 9:21 AM

K1052 said:
It's a dictatorship and the Russians at large have no taste for overthrowing him even as he sends them to die by the bushel. He consolidated control long ago. The most likely thing to happen is that another strongman does him in while his security services largely stand by and watch. Almost happened with Prigozhin who found him self a good chunk of the way to Moscow but got cold feet.

Yes, Putin is nuts about this in particular. It is incredibly irrational unless viewed through his own perspective on Russian imperialism and his right to conduct it on his neighbors. That does not extend however to doing something that could get the Kremlin vaporized along with himself because he doesn't want to die.

The whole Prigozhin thing is still baffling to me as to why he stopped. He seemed to think that Putin would let things go after that and…like…what.

K1052 · Thursday at 9:24 AM

fskimospy said:
I hadn’t heard that. Why would it not be possible to fire Trident missiles without US cooperation? I get that they are built here but the UK already has plenty of them and presumably also has at least some spare parts. It doesn’t rely on GPS so the US couldn’t disable it that way either.

Unlike Ukraine where long term supplies are necessary, nuclear wars should be very short - at least the nuclear part, haha, so you only really need to be able to fire them once.

There is zero chance the UK would purchase Tridents that lack full, unrestricted targeting capability.

K1052 · Thursday at 9:25 AM

fskimospy said:
The whole Prigozhin thing is still baffling to me as to why he stopped. He seemed to think that Putin would let things go after that and…like…what.

Defies belief. Once you roll tanks on Moscow you've made your bed so you better follow through.

Discussion Does a nuclear deterrent actually deter

Lifer

Elite Member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member