Hacker News Reader

Comment by telot1 | Hacker News Reader

A VERY relevant video posted as a comment on HN yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbB0srzLuuo Highly recommended viewing. It is a fictional newscast of how the world can go from normal to nuclear armageddon in an hour. edit: added some context.

View on HN

I would have included the title of the video in the comment, to give a bit more context: Live news from Europe - NATO shoots down Russia jet over Latvian airspace (fiction)

That video is pretty stupid. WW3 will not start over a downed plane.

WW3 will not even start in case of one isolated nuclear explosion (Russia bombing one US city), there are limited response scenarios prepared for that.

On the production level, conventional war between Nato and Russia happens, and the BBC presenter is oh so calm and composed, but I supposed you can't ask much from a low-budget documentary (if I can call it that).

"World War surely would not start over a single assassination"[0]. Given a sufficient tension (which is all time high now since the collapse of USSR between NATO and Russia) any single event might provide a tipping point to a chain reaction and downward spiral to the all-out war. Sure, neither side wants it, but looking back at history I don't think that's enough to prevent bad things from happening.

0. See WWI.

The context was extremely different. Nowadays there are mechanisms, organisations, and plans that prevent minor incidents from escalating. You cannot compare the world of today with the world of 1914.

Also the war did not "start over an assassination". It's much more complex than that, and the assassination was just the pretext.

As would be starting a war over a downed plane or strike on a US city.

Some people really wanted to go to war in 1914. Are you saying that we are now in such a situation, where USA or Russia are itching for a conflict?

War plans rarely if ever work exactly as planned. You can simulate nuclear responses but I doubt it has the same impact as millions of dead people.

WWI was started over the assassination of Duke Ferdinand and his wife. You think the species has evolved somehow since then?

ICBM seem like a good deterrent compared to infantry and animal-carried weapons

I like your optimism, but I'm not sure it's warranted. A "limited response" doesn't mean escalations won't continue, and we no longer have a guarantee that at any given point in time either Russia or the US will have a rational leader.

I was just pointing out that a downed plane doesn't automatically trigger WW3.

See for example the lawful (but provocative) downing of a russian plane by Turkey. The retaliation from Russia was basically just words and some economic sanctions.

I'm not sure if the leader of US or Russia can order a first strike without inbound missiles from the other side. Would the military execute a first strike knowing what the response of the other side would be?

WW1 began over less

Colonial empires and pretext?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com