Nuclear strike odds moved from “single” to “double digits” in past week | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear strike odds moved from “single” to “double digits” in past week

axios.com

29 pointsxqcgrek252 comments

What he is doing is exactly what's proscribed in the UN Charter, and was argued to be the supreme international crime by a Soviet jurist at the Nuremberg trials: a war of aggression, intended to expand border or subjugate people. If Ukraine wins, there might be a nuclear detonation. If Ukraine backs down, it will be exterminated.

It's better to have tried to stop this tyranny and die anyway, than to see it succeed and spread. This is blackmail. The world needs to categorically reject it. Importantly this means China and India need to reject this path.

Ukraine has a right to exist, to free its people and territory. That Russia considers this so terrible that it's threatening to use nukes proves it cannot responsibly be a nuclear power. Free nations can't survive if it rolls over to this blackmail. Russia will come for more, having been shown the world will cower and give them whatever they want.

> a war of aggression [...] If Ukraine backs down, it will be exterminated.

There has been many wars of aggression that does not end in countries being exterminated.

Having Ukraine make it a do or die situation is nothing the US should support.

> There has been many wars of aggression that does not end in countries being exterminated.

In how many of those was a) erasing the target the stated goal of the aggressor and b) successful resistance was not the reason for it not ending that way?

What makes you think your country isn't next on Putin's list?

Even nuclear-armed NATO members are subject to this type of blackmail. "Give me what I want or I nuke $some_nearby_country_that_isnt_in_NATO."

Basically, Putin knows we won't answer a nuclear strike in Ukraine by nuking Russia. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that fact? Yes, we'll invade and kick his army's asses out of Ukraine... but eviction from Ukraine is happening with near-100% probability anyway if he doesn't resort to nukes. He will respond to our invasion by nuking our own troops... and again, we will do nothing to Russia in return.

After reading a bunch of analysis this last week, it appears quite likely to happen in light of the rushed annexation.

The consensus is that the US military will not counter attack with nukes but will destroy elements of Russian operations in and around Russia.

Single most important project for any government right now is avoiding this.

This was job #1 in US defense policy from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. There was a lull after the wall came down but it's back.

In my opinion the only way to avoid nuclear war is to get rid of nuclear weapons entirely. Humans being what they are, it may take a war to get that point across.

The way I see it we live in a markov process where nuclear annihilation is an absorbing state. With mitigations we can increase the "halflife" of humanity so to speak, but only so much.

The only long term solution is for civilization to go multi-planetary.

If there any arrows with non zero probability into that state then it certainly is always increasing.

Nukes can easily be sent between planets. With sufficient tech you can even make nuclear shaped charges.

The distance give you more advance warning, making it more realistic to intercept them.

The only reason nuclear interception is even plausible is thanks to the atmosphere. Was it not for the atmosphere, you could wrap the warheads in inflatable mylar balloons, and send in tens of millions of identical but empty balloons. Unless you have the capability of intercepting 30 million+ objects, you would not be able to intercept an interplanetary nuclear attack, even one levied with current technology.

MAD is the only way. The current powers are just too weak to enforce it. Ukraine shutdown its nuclear arsenal because of russia and the us. The US should, if it had any balls or was worthy of trust, declare that any nuclear attack on ukraine will be seen as a war declaration to the US.

The situation in Ukraine only shows the world that non proliferation is a stupid gamble.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_...

The US should, if it had any balls or was worthy of trust, declare that any nuclear attack on ukraine will be seen as a war declaration to the US.

My understanding is that a nuclear attack against Ukraine puts the Budapest Memorandum in play. The effect will be similar, in that we'll be more or less compelled to join the war on Ukraine's side.

If we fail to do that, then good luck with any future nonproliferation efforts that involve promises from the "good guys."

Oddly enough China agreed to protect Ukraine in the event of a nuclear strike.

China aims at becoming/remaining the world #1 economic superpower; Europe's GDP being 10 times the Russian one suggested them to be more pragmatic.

It's already been violated afaik

How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely? Do you somehow erase the knowledge required to build nuclear weapons? How does this prevent knowledge/building from moving out of sight rather than actually disappearing? When I worked in a recycling facility in college I would collect old books off the conveyor describing nuclear engineering, how do you track me down to prevent that knowledge from proliferating?

Not a workable idea, but a good sci-fi plot: get the major powers to give up their nukes. create a single, tiny nation, a nuclear Vatican, populated by citizens from all former nuclear powers. give them a number of ICBMs. have them nuke whoever else develops the tech.

Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1] have agreed to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The USA is a party to the treaty.

[1] https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text

A "nuclear Vatican" is not necessary. UN already exists. Control of stockpiles should be transferred to its control, to be diminished and repurposed from mass destruction means to planetary defense means.

I remember an old sci-fi anime where the wars weren't fought with nuclear weapons because their world had "neutron-jammers" that prevented neutrons from triggering chain reactions

Something about the phrase "nuclear Vatican" makes me giggle more than it should.

Makes for a great (cover) band name

Do their hats scale in proportion to regular proximity to launch codes?

Nuclear Vatican should just be the US

US erased that possibility when it stopped honouring warranties given to states that gave up WMDs, and started screwing them one after another. Iraq, Libya, Iran... Quite impossible for North Korea to give up on their WMDs now they saw what happened to those following that route. Others took notice also.

The US government will find a way to ensure that its foreign policy goals are accomplished.

Lol, nuke them first then.

> How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely?

One step at a time. Start by reducing numbers radically. There's no reason for countries like the US, Russia, and China to have such large arsenals.

> How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely?

Rods from god. Eliminates headquarters and control centers every bit as effectively as a nuke, but without the radiation.

The same way we don’t make general artificial intelligence. We all agree not do it. It’s just too dangerous. Dismantle all the nuclear warheads, destroy the materials, erase the research and focus on nuclear power instead.

Whether or not we’ll be smart enough as a species to avoid these research paths and behaviors… I’m not holding my breath.

You can't destroy the knowledge required to make nukes. It's too widespread and they're too easy to make. There's some moderately difficult engineering involved in the material processing, but the basics are dead simple.

And someone is totally going to make an AGI.

That’s where avoiding behavior is important. Nuclear weapons don’t spontaneously appear.

If you require 100% compliance in an endeavor, count on it failing.

So nuclear blackmail is ok now. Surrender Ukraine or I nuke you. Surrender eastern europe or I nuke you. And what's next?

What happens if you nuke ukraine even if I dont surrender it?

Why, internal diplomatic concern. Just like China's Uighurs.

I can only assume that is what is behind the annexation announcement.

We nuke Moscow.

Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to simply capitulate. There are lots of reasons not to do that but if your goal above all others is to lessen the potential for a nuclear exchange, it is the way to go. There are of course other consequences to capitulation but immediate nuclear war isn't one of them.

> Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to simply capitulate.

Yes! Has the world gone crazy? Everyone is talking about the sacrifices they're willing to make to avert the risks potentially connected with climate change in many decades- and yet it seems that many accept the idea that in order to defend some principles it's fine to risk nuclear armageddon in the next month.

Capitulation rewards nuclear blackmail and invites emulation, causing future episodes of brinkmanship. It is far from clear this path is more likely to avoid "armageddon."

You can dismiss freedom from mass rape, arbitrary execution, tyranny and the rights to dignity and self-determination as "some principles"– but without these principles there is no world that is worth saving.

So your answer is let every nation that has a nuclear weapon do as it pleases? Can't wait for NK to demand SK or Israel demand Palestine or Iran demand for everyone to be Muslin.

Have you not heard what the criminals employed in Putin’s military will do to you? What you advise is, at the bottom line, “don’t fight back, just give up and be violently raped.”

It’s not avoiding it’s scaring the other side into thinking you’ll retaliate 10x and shaming the aggressor by calling out their demonstrated weakness by using the last resort to win against what should have been an easy opponent.

Nuclear deterrence is important and needs to be practiced aggressively. Naval exercises, armed bombers in flight.

The CIA needs to do its job and turn a Russian oligarch into an assassin because Putin backed himself into a corner, he’s either going to win in Ukraine or be deposed and the date for the endgame is getting closer.

Or NATO is going to have to figure out a way to save face while giving away the annexed regions to come up with a mutually dissatisfying treaty where both sides win something and Putin gets exiled to Elba.

> The CIA needs to do its job

CIA doing it's job just fine: Europe is buying LNG from US and Russia is closer and closer to collapse.

We do not want Russian collapse, the aftermath would be very messy and dangerous to deal with.

The population of Russia pales when compared to the population under the recent collapse of the Middle East, especially when you consider education levels.

The world is messy and dangerous…

I think is no corner by now, NATO has lost the war.

The question is if they will admit it or if they will try to restart the war looking for a different outcome.

Ukraine is alone right now regarding to their attempts to recover the south of their country, it's now a matter of time till Russia to resort to a heavy handed response based in its territorial claim.

By sending yet more arms to Ukraine? Because this seems to be the current mindset of Western governments...

You can't have escalation and de-escalation of crisis at the same time...

Yes, let's teach the world that any nuclear country is untouchable.

Holding the world to ransom is wearing thin.

Only India, China and perhaps Latin America might hold some sway over Putin. Even that seems doubtful given recent events.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com