Europe under extreme duress

[Hotdogs]

Japan and Germany learned it the hard way because we bombed Dresden and Tokyo to the ground, indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose, not even targeting manufacturing centers let alone military targets. We've murdered entire villages of Vietnamese. But it's ok because it was us, and that wasn't reflective of who we are as a people. But if Russians commit atrocities in war then it is.

Who said it was okay? You assume too much. The option to not bombing those cities was the potential thousands of dead American service members by invasion.

Do you need reminded who started these conflicts? Japanese and German war crimes are amongst the most expansive in recorded history. Nanking in particular was exorbitantly brutal even by medieval standards. American war crimes in Vietnam were adjudicated and tried by court martial. Nobody is saying we’re perfect, but we have standards. Did you not watch the Gallagher fiasco recently? The Hague and Geneva conventions codified the basic principles in the law of armed conflict. Over 190 countries agreed on or ratified these standards - Including the former USSR/Russian Federation.

Modern western militaries hold their service members accountable - Russia doesn’t. War is hell, but your appeasement and counter of Russian aggression is very Chamberlain-esque. Your entire debate centers around “The U.S. has done worse - so it’s okay for the Russians to do.” …How you logically keep that together is some twilight zone level mental gymnastics.

 

[Griz882]

Does anyone think Putin will directly attack the Baltic nations? He won't while they are members of NATO and we have tripwire forces in them.

He will certainly continue to undermine them surreptitiously, funding anti-NATO and anti-democracy elements of the country, encouraging infighting, using energy and resources as leverage, and looking to split seams between NATO members. He was glad to help along Brexit and an enthusiastic participant in a country's election shenanigans. He's been at war with us and we pretended not to be.

His invasion was a disaster for Ukraine, but looks to be a disaster for Russia too on multiple levels. We just need to make sure it is not existential for Russia, where they do whatever it takes to win in Ukraine. That road leads to tactical nukes.

With Russia in its current boundaries, it was a whole lot more ethnically homogeneous and everyone is happy to be there. Taking over these other countries results in having as part of your community a bunch of people that hate your guts. Dumb.

Russia needs to just not be a part of the modern world. Bullies not invited.

Wait…we’re using logic now? When did that happen?

Just kidding. You are entirely correct.

 

[Mirage]

I have participated in about 15 NATO v Russia war games…they only end up with a nuclear war if it is written into the scenario from the start. In “free play” it only happened once. Why? Because military leaders aren’t willing to go that far. Why do you imagine that Russians are?

Well perhaps it's a shame that military leaders don't get to decide if we use nukes, and likewise in Russia. Any war with Russia goes about like this: We start conventionally, we dominate, they use "tactical" nukes (larger than those used on Hiroshima/Nagasaki) to kill our military forces, and then the world goes boom. Assuming different is gambling with the future of everything.

My point is you are banging on about the end of the world when, scientific evidence doesn’t entirely support you. Try “Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear WeaponsExchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations” Reisner et. al. That study disagrees totally. Science is in the business of always questioning itself so it genuinely “says” very little that is definitive). Indeed, I can counter any study with another equally well researched.

That study examines only a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan of about 100 nukes. Please find me a study that says nuclear war between NATO and Russia/China doesn't threaten our extinction at worst and kill almost all of us as the most likely outcome.

Look, it is not a military question it is a political one. Nothing else. Your whole “what they should do” approach is the same as me saying that Iceland SHOULD send positive vibes via a telekinetic link with Sweden to make Putin calmer. I’ll say it one more time…no standing western government will survive allowing a direct attack on NATO to go unanswered. The governments that replace them will be placed there by people who demand that treaty obligations be honored…that is all there is. Biden isn’t going to destroy his administration (and maybe his political party) so he can say “Well, MAYBE I prevented a nuclear war!” So, abandon your SHOULD do idea and I’ll abandon mine.

Cool, then we can agree that what we will do is probably go to war with Russia. That was fun. Now we can get back to the more interesting debate on what we should do.

To your final point…you seem convinced that Russia (or the U.S., can ‘t tell which) is just leaning on the nuke button ready to launch…I entirely disagree. You say the “Russian people” are, at some measure, innocents held down by Putin…so why will their fathers and sons be so quick to launch a nuclear attack? A recent study, I’ll see if I can find it, has the chances of a nuclear exchange at something like 10 in a million right now…as we speak. We have been much closer (in my life time - I lived through the old “duck-and-cover” days) and the Russians were a lot more hostile back then…and they didn’t hit the button. So, the greatest difference between us is the idea that hosts of military men on both sides are out there ready to destroy the world…I don’t think they are. Frankly, I don’t see a war with Russia going nuclear.

Yeah nuclear exchange is very unlikely right now, I agree. I don't think they'll hit the button unless we threaten their existence. So lets not do that, even if they invade the Baltics (which is extremely unlikely, I think most everyone agrees). That's my point... We can beat them as long as they don't press the button, so lets not go to direct war with them and gamble with them pressing it. We don't need to in order to defeat them and protect our European Allies.

Who said it was okay? You assume too much. The option to not bombing those cities was the potential thousands of dead American service members by invasion.

Do you need reminded who started these conflicts? Japanese and German war crimes are amongst the most expansive in recorded history. Nanking in particular was exorbitantly brutal even by medieval standards. American war crimes in Vietnam were adjudicated and tried by court martial. Nobody is saying we’re perfect, but we have standards. Did you not watch the Gallagher fiasco recently? The Hague and Geneva conventions codified the basic principles in the law of armed conflict. Over 190 countries agreed on or ratified these standards - Including the former USSR/Russian Federation.

Modern western militaries hold their service members accountable - Russia doesn’t. War is hell, but your appeasement and counter of Russian aggression is very Chamberlain-esque. Your entire debate centers around “The U.S. has done worse - so it’s okay for the Russians to do.” …How you logically keep that together is some twilight zone level mental gymnastics.

You're missing my point entirely. As I've said multiple times, I know that our govt is less tolerant of wartime atrocities than Russia. That's irrelevant to my point that it's foolish to point to an entire population of people as evil because of the actions of that people's govt or a small minority of its military leaders or soldiers during wartime. People are people. Govt's are entirely different, as they cannot be lumped all together like the human species can be. I never said it's ok for anyone to commit atrocities, so don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm horrified to see what it appears Russians have done in Ukraine. Read my words this time: some Russians doing bad things does not mean all Russians are evil any more than some Americans doing bad things makes all Americans evil. That is different than saying the Russian and American governments are the same or their toleration of atrocities is the same.

 

[Griz882]

Well perhaps it's a shame that military leaders don't get to decide if we use nukes, and likewise in Russia. Any war with Russia goes about like this: We start conventionally, we dominate, they use "tactical" nukes (larger than those used on Hiroshima/Nagasaki) to kill our military forces, and then the world goes boom. Assuming different is gambling with the future of everything.

I’m willing to gamble with that…better dead then a slave.

That study examines only a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan of about 100 nukes. Please find me a study that says nuclear war between NATO and Russia/China doesn't threaten our extinction at worst and kill almost all of us as the most likely outcome.

No, it does not. Try again. It specifically discusses events well over a limited exchange. Reading the blurb doesn’t quite cut it here.

Cool, then we can agree that what we will do is probably go to war with Russia. That was fun. Now we can get back to the more interesting debate on what we should do.

Already discussed…defend NATO allies. All day long, that is what we SHOULD do.

Yeah nuclear exchange is very unlikely right now, I agree. I don't think they'll hit the button unless we threaten their existence. So lets not do that, even if they invade the Baltics (which is extremely unlikely, I think most everyone agrees). That's my point... We can beat them as long as they don't press the button, so lets not go to direct war with them and gamble with them pressing it. We don't need to in order to defeat them and protect our European Allies.

So help me out here…when has anyone suggested such - I mean in the actual world? If Putin remains in power it is almost 100% certain we will got to war against Russia. At that point chances of a nuclear war will rise to about 25 in one million…I’ll take those odds and defend our alliance.

You're missing my point entirely. As I've said multiple times, I know that our govt is less tolerant of wartime atrocities than Russia. That's irrelevant to my point that it's foolish to point to an entire population of people as evil because of the actions of that people's govt or a small minority of its military leaders or soldiers during wartime. People are people. Govt's are entirely different, as they cannot be lumped all together like the human species can be. I never said it's ok for anyone to commit atrocities, so don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm horrified to see what it appears Russians have done in Ukraine. Read my words this time: some Russians doing bad things does not mean all Russians are evil any more than some Americans doing bad things makes all Americans evil. That is different than saying the Russian and American governments are the same or their toleration of atrocities is the same.

I haven’t discussed the issue of war crimes (another highly charged issue) but Russians will have to be punished for those committed. On my last Afghanistan tour a soldier murdered some civilians…a war crime…and he was punished. Is that reflective of all American people? No, of course not, but the soldier was punished and there were ripples up the chain of command. The same applies to Russia. So, I have never said the Russians are all evil and that is why I doubt there will ever be a nuclear war if it comes to it. As Sting put it…”Let’s hope the Russians love their children too.”

 

[Griz882]

All, I’m sorry, I really screwed up the “look” of that last post! Also, I commented to a quote not aimed at me but @Hotdogs …still, the intent remains the same.

 

[Mirage]

All, I’m sorry, I really screwed up the “look” of that last post! Also, I commented to a quote not aimed at me but @Hotdogs …still, the intent remains the same.

No worries! I can't quote it directly as it is, but I'll try to reply here.

I don't think slavery is the outcome we can expect if we fight Russia indirectly instead of directly. Nor is anything close to it. A victory and a free Baltic region is the most likely end state, I believe, just with a fractured NATO and increased nationalism as a result.

Can you point to or quote a place in that study that mentions that they modeled the effects of a full nuclear exchange between countries other than India and Pakistan? I think you quoted the wrong article, because this one you mentioned doesn't cover that: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331
Even in the limited exchange of 100 nukes that they modeled, they estimated over 1 billion deaths (or around 14% of the earth's population, or about 161 times the population of all the Baltic states combined).

We have a 100% chance of going to war with Russia if Putin stays in power? AND if we do then our chances of it becoming a nuclear war are 0.000025%? What are you smoking my man?

 

[Hotdogs]

You're missing my point entirely. As I've said multiple times, I know that our govt is less tolerant of wartime atrocities than Russia. That's irrelevant to my point that it's foolish to point to an entire population of people as evil because of the actions of that people's govt or a small minority of its military leaders or soldiers during wartime. People are people. Govt's are entirely different, as they cannot be lumped all together like the human species can be. I never said it's ok for anyone to commit atrocities, so don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm horrified to see what it appears Russians have done in Ukraine. Read my words this time: some Russians doing bad things does not mean all Russians are evil any more than some Americans doing bad things makes all Americans evil. That is different than saying the Russian and American governments are the same or their toleration of atrocities is the same.

We can agree to disagree here then, but your assumption of the Russian populace being misinformed is probably off. Especially since this aggression and irredentist agenda has been going on since at least 2008 when they invaded Georgia and 2014 at the outset of the current conflict. You could argue since 2004 when the color revolutions started. Not all Russians are bad but the majority of their population at worst displays apathy towards the situation.

 

[taxi1]

American war crimes in Vietnam were adjudicated and tried by court martial. Nobody is saying we’re perfect, but we have standards.

Yeah, humans are going to human, and there is no end to what we are capable of. Case in point, Abu Ghraib…how did that happen? It’s hard to read the Wiki page. It will happen again, though. As @Mirage notes, in the past too.

It’s the systems we put together that hopefully are self-correcting, steering us back to the better angels of our nature. An endless chore, pushing the rock up the hill.

I watched the Ben Franklin documentary, must-see TV. Two ideas that resonated from it, one is the phrase, “A republic, if you can keep it.” The idea is the idea of the American experiment, the idea that democracy is the better way, and not just for us. The experiment isn’t over, and it is getting tested across the planet at the moment.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Russians that make an average of $673 per month

What? Where did you get that numbers? Average for 2021 for rural Russia is $310.37 by rate for Dec 31st. It is not even China, it's Africa from the standpoint of average salary.

 

[Griz882]

No worries! I can't quote it directly as it is, but I'll try to reply here.

I don't think slavery is the outcome we can expect if we fight Russia indirectly instead of directly. Nor is anything close to it. A victory and a free Baltic region is the most likely end state, I believe, just with a fractured NATO and increased nationalism as a result.

Can you point to or quote a place in that study that mentions that they modeled the effects of a full nuclear exchange between countries other than India and Pakistan? I think you quoted the wrong article, because this one you mentioned doesn't cover that: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331
Even in the limited exchange of 100 nukes that they modeled, they estimated over 1 billion deaths (or around 14% of the earth's population, or about 161 times the population of all the Baltic states combined).

We have a 100% chance of going to war with Russia if Putin stays in power? AND if we do then our chances of it becoming a nuclear war are 0.000025%? What are you smoking my man?

Facts…just facts. I have a feeling that you think Putin has absolute and immediate launch authority…he doesn’t.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I have participated in 2 NATO vs Russia wargames

I have participated in USN/USCG joint exercises with RU Navy in 1996 and I have to tell you that even then the shore antiship missile forces of RU had firing solution for American ships at sea and RU ELINT people lived in alert status for all its duration, when all the while RU DDG had Link-16 apparatus temporary installed on her CIC. I personally had kinda cognitive dissonance when discouvered the circumstances.

 

[Mirage]

We can agree to disagree here then, but your assumption of the Russian populace being misinformed is probably off. Especially since this aggression and irredentist agenda has been going on since at least 2008 when they invaded Georgia and 2014 at the outset of the current conflict. You could argue since 2004 when the color revolutions started. Not all Russians are bad but the majority of their population at worst displays apathy towards the situation.

Yeah man and the East Germans, Poles, etc. are guilty of the atrocities Stalin orchestrated because they didn't vote him out. I guess they were just apathetic towards the situation.

You need to educate yourself on Russian politics. Putin is a dictator. It is illegal to speak negatively about him or the war. Many people have been beaten and arrested for doing so anyway. The people there know well what happens to Putin's critics. His last political opponent is in prison and was poisoned while on a trip in Germany. But sure, they all love him because he says they do.

 

[Griz882]

No worries! I can't quote it directly as it is, but I'll try to reply here.

I don't think slavery is the outcome we can expect if we fight Russia indirectly instead of directly. Nor is anything close to it. A victory and a free Baltic region is the most likely end state, I believe, just with a fractured NATO and increased nationalism as a result.

Can you point to or quote a place in that study that mentions that they modeled the effects of a full nuclear exchange between countries other than India and Pakistan? I think you quoted the wrong article, because this one you mentioned doesn't cover that: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331

To be clear, Reisner is not a study about an Indo-Pak exchange but uses their respective arsenals as a metric to model a simulated attack on Atlanta, GA. More specifically, it is about what would happen after a blast on a major metropolitan area. I used it because it scales upward me dismisses the idea of a nuclear winter (the real killer in a nuclear exchange) as a long lasting issue. “A Model For The Impacts Of Nuclear War” by Seth D. Baum and Anthony M. Barrett does a great job of discussing damages, death, and survival. I also recommend Case 3 in this…

What is the likelihood that civilizational collapse would directly lead to human extinction (within decades)? — EA Forum

Epistemic transparency: Confidence in conclusions varies throughout. I give rough indicators of my confidence at the section level by indicating the…

forum.effectivealtruism.org

 

[Mirage]

To be clear, Reisner is not a study about an Indo-Pak exchange but uses their respective arsenals as a metric to model a simulated attack on Atlanta, GA. More specifically, it is about what would happen after a blast on a major metropolitan area. I used it because it scales upward me dismisses the idea of a nuclear winter (the real killer in a nuclear exchange) as a long lasting issue. “A Model For The Impacts Of Nuclear War” by Seth D. Baum and Anthony M. Barrett does a great job of discussing damages, death, and survival. I also recommend Case 3 in this…

What is the likelihood that civilizational collapse would directly lead to human extinction (within decades)? — EA Forum

Epistemic transparency: Confidence in conclusions varies throughout. I give rough indicators of my confidence at the section level by indicating the…

forum.effectivealtruism.org

They used Atlanta as their stereotypical city for their modeling. The study disputes the idea of nuclear winter if 100 nukes go off. It doesn't touch the idea if 10000 nukes go off. In locations geographically distant, let alone including things such as neutron bombs.

I'm not sure what your point is with the other studies, as both of them concur with the study I posted.

 

[Hotdogs]

Yeah man and the East Germans, Poles, etc. are guilty of the atrocities Stalin orchestrated because they didn't vote him out. I guess they were just apathetic towards the situation.

You need to educate yourself on Russian politics. Putin is a dictator. It is illegal to speak negatively about him or the war. Many people have been beaten and arrested for doing so anyway. The people there know well what happens to Putin's critics. His last political opponent is in prison and was poisoned while on a trip in Germany. But sure, they all love him because he says they do.

I’m read in on what’s going on there - Thanks for the education.