Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway5752 | Hacker News Reader

https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con...

People are minimizing this, based on the word "consultation". Don't be fooled, this is grave news, even though it is not Article 5. Article 5 invocation under these circumstances have substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.

View on HN

Article 4 was done in 2014 too and it was hardly news while again in reaction to Ukraine which was experiencing its own civil war against a pro-Russian puppet leader that resulted in regime change aannnnnnd.... nothing else.

The military operation by Russia is alarming.

The Article 4 invocation is not.

> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.

This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1]

To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

This keeps getting repeated but both parties having nuclear weapons means a nuclear exchange is possible. You just need one crazy party.

It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable".

Me being old enough to buy lottery tickets means that me winning the lottery three times in a row is possible. The probability of that is very low.

There is nothing to suggest that the probability of a full-scale nuclear exchange is now higher than before. In fact, given that all major powers have already ruled out a military response, the probability might even be lower.

> You just need one crazy party.

No, you need an entire crazy command-and-control structure.

> It's not a question of "possible". It's a question of "probable".

Let's just say the topic of "probable" hasn't the best track record right now and still hope for the best.

I fear that with missile defense and impending climate disruption models, the calculus of MAD may have been updated somewhat: no-one wants a starving population with a MAGA-level of understanding and education about their predicament roaming around the enclaves... If you thought California's and Australia's fires were what climate impacts will look like, think again: a limited nuclear exchange will probably have about the same disruptive impact as a bad climate year in 2035 +/- 10 years. Tidsfrist!

A bad climate year will kill a handful of people, like California and Australia's fires did. (Humanity is getting richer and more capable faster than the climate is getting warmer.)

A limited nuclear exchange will likely kill millions of people.

A bad climate year in 2040 will kill millions of people. Mark my words. Climate disruption is only getting started we are on an exponential response function between average temp and effects with plenty of hysteresis to come ie. no way back, won't regrow, won't feed...

Yes, in the presence of rational actors this would be avoided, but here we are anyway. A single nuclear strike would be met with retaliation and it would escalate to mutually assured destruction like clockwork. A lot of optimists thought Putin would not invade Ukraine because of the risk and that he was posturing. It would be similarly optimistic to presume rational actor decision processes. That may be a strategy he is employing, but we will never know until the brink. We are on the knife's edge of disaster here.

> We are on the knife's edge of disaster here.

Not even remotely true. Demonstrably. The worst thing on the table right now are economic sanctions. Putin knew these were going to happen, and evidently thought the trouble was worth it.

In fact, over the past few weeks, the major powers have confirmed over and over and over again that there would be no military response at all.

and so did putin say he would not go into ukraine. not everybody says what they would do in advance.

If Putin presses on toward Poland or threatens the Baltics, then we will be on a knife's edge. However, for now, Russia has only invaded Ukraine. It's a humanitarian disaster, but so far on the world stage it shows no sign it will escalate beyond new sanctions, export controls, and perhaps additional military support for NATO members in Eastern Europe.

> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.

To what end?

If Russia wants more territory they presumably care about the future. Why conquer all this territory just to blow up the world? Sounds like a waste of time.

The scariest situation is one nuke. How do you respond? One nuke back or two? Then things escalate quickly.

But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.

> But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.

"I won" regardless of having someone to brag to, is still a motivating force I fear.

You’ve read too many Tom Clancy novels or something. People can declare whatever they want but unless there really is an attack on NATO, no one is talking about Article 5 and in such a circumstance it would be the attack itself and not the citation to a treaty that would be the issue. Also, a “full scale thermonuclear exchange” isn’t what it used to be. Stockpiles are orders of magnitude smaller than in the past, and many aren’t “thermonuclear” at all, just fission bombs with higher yield and better targeting.

Reading any Tom Clancy novels is too many, so guilty as charged. I can't unread them.

Since this is a hot war waged by Russia that is neighboring 4 NATO members, it seems as though you are a bit more a casual than would be appropriate. Your comments about nuclear war are not comforting.

You...realize that all "thermonuclear" is is doping your bomb with tritium/a light fusion stage to generate more neutrons, for more complete fission of the fissile primary, right?

All nuclear weapons are fission. Only newer ones are fusion boosted fission devices.

I assure you, there is more than enough nuclear ordinance laying around to ensure WWIV is fought with sticks and stones.

You do not want.

I’m fairly certain that some people truly do want to see the world burn.

Hard to do with cooked retinas, acute radiation poisoning, and the prospects of living beyond 20 cancer free are minimal.

Also, the world's a big place, even though the internet has made it seem small.

Yes, I understand it'd be nice to watch a good fee choice chunks burn... But I really don't think anyone is prepared for the hell on Earth of a full strategic nuclear exchange.

cooked retinas... try melted eyeballs... happened at hiroshima. nuclear weapons are truly barbaric

There exists bombs with > 4000x power of those dropped on Hiroshima. Also Russia modernised their intercontinental missiles and now they are able to carry multiple warheads that split before impact.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO so article 5 doesn't apply here.

That is why I said, "even though it is not Article 5"

Your next sentence started with, "Article 5 invocation under these circumstances" which gave me the impression you meant that article 5 could somehow be invoked here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ukraine is not in the Nato, so I don't think Nato would consider launching nukes to defend it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com