I read somewhere that the U.S. is at Defcon 3 after PuttPutt placed Russia on special combat readiness, but I don't really know what that all means.
I read somewhere that the U.S. is at Defcon 3 after PuttPutt placed Russia on special combat readiness, but I don't really know what that all means.
I'm just a simple guy who doesn't know much, but my work is really close to the local ANG base, and I know there is noticeably more activity than usual over the past few weeks. 
VolvoHeretic said:I read somewhere that the U.S. is at Defcon 3 after PuttPutt placed Russia on special combat readiness, but I don't really know what that all means.
I don't mean to be confrontational, but you seem to have a special interest in extreme outcomes - nukes, WWIII and such. Or am I reading you wrong?
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Well, I'm a little jaded. I grew up during the cold war and the Vietnam war but was too young to get drafted turning 18 a year after the draft ended (The war we didn't want to win and lost 50,000 kids for nothing). I have watched crazy dictators come and go (as in dead) and have seen a lot of death and destruction on the news not to mention what you could learn on the History Channel back when it was about real history. I expect the worst because I have seen the worst. This could spiral out of control at any moment and end very badly, as if it isn't already.
I used to think that Putt Putt was just crazy, not insane, but now I think that he is stark raving mad. The cynic in me just expects the worst. Sorry.
about-history.com: List of Dictatorships by Death Toll – The Top 10 Biggest Mass Killings in History
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I've lived through roughly the same period you have (a bit shorter), and I've seen the many of the same events (and been close to a couple in various ways). At the same time, this period has been one of exceptional peace and development through much of the world; it just doesn't get the same level of attention. Sources like the History Channel, Wikipedia, and the like are not terribly effective in showing the broader picture. Relying on them without considering the context could certainly leave one with an overdeveloped sense of impending doom.
02Pilot said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I've lived through roughly the same period you have (a bit shorter), and I've seen the many of the same events (and been close to a couple in various ways). At the same time, this period has been one of exceptional peace and development through much of the world; it just doesn't get the same level of attention. Sources like the History Channel, Wikipedia, and the like are not terribly effective in showing the broader picture. Relying on them without considering the context could certainly leave one with an overdeveloped sense of impending doom.
While true, that stability and peace have been incredible during the past few decades as opposed to the few decades before that, I do not see that as a trend. The same issues are there for the same reason and MAD is the same threat it always was.
So NATO has released an estimate of the number of Russian soldiers killed that backs up the ~10k number accidentally leaked through a Russian website recently:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-army-ukraine-war-1.6393996
tuna55 said:02Pilot said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I've lived through roughly the same period you have (a bit shorter), and I've seen the many of the same events (and been close to a couple in various ways). At the same time, this period has been one of exceptional peace and development through much of the world; it just doesn't get the same level of attention. Sources like the History Channel, Wikipedia, and the like are not terribly effective in showing the broader picture. Relying on them without considering the context could certainly leave one with an overdeveloped sense of impending doom.
While true, that stability and peace have been incredible during the past few decades as opposed to the few decades before that, I do not see that as a trend. The same issues are there for the same reason and MAD is the same threat it always was.
My middlest daughter is in AP World History and my eldest is in AP US History and over the course of this year have both had the opportunity to study WWI and WWII, so we've been talking about this as a family quite a lot. How some of the events are similar, how they're different. If the three of us collaborated on a paper to discuss our working thesis, it would probably be titled "Why I'm Glad I'm Not the One Who Has to Decide What To Do Right Now". That said, one of the things that I've been thinking about is that, really, the last 80 years or so have kind of been an abberation when you look at world history, generally. Having first a pandemic and then what is basically a war of conquest is really just kind of how human history has gone since folks started writing stuff down. Perhaps it was a bit of hubris for us to think that we had conquered both nature and human nature and left those behind us...
wae said:tuna55 said:02Pilot said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I've lived through roughly the same period you have (a bit shorter), and I've seen the many of the same events (and been close to a couple in various ways). At the same time, this period has been one of exceptional peace and development through much of the world; it just doesn't get the same level of attention. Sources like the History Channel, Wikipedia, and the like are not terribly effective in showing the broader picture. Relying on them without considering the context could certainly leave one with an overdeveloped sense of impending doom.
While true, that stability and peace have been incredible during the past few decades as opposed to the few decades before that, I do not see that as a trend. The same issues are there for the same reason and MAD is the same threat it always was.
My middlest daughter is in AP World History and my eldest is in AP US History and over the course of this year have both had the opportunity to study WWI and WWII, so we've been talking about this as a family quite a lot. How some of the events are similar, how they're different. If the three of us collaborated on a paper to discuss our working thesis, it would probably be titled "Why I'm Glad I'm Not the One Who Has to Decide What To Do Right Now". That said, one of the things that I've been thinking about is that, really, the last 80 years or so have kind of been an abberation when you look at world history, generally. Having first a pandemic and then what is basically a war of conquest is really just kind of how human history has gone since folks started writing stuff down. Perhaps it was a bit of hubris for us to think that we had conquered both nature and human nature and left those behind us...
That's a helpful thought. You're right, the peace has been a blip. Is it a lasting blip? I doubt it. People are the same. We have a remarkable tendency to dismiss those that came before us as simpletons and less intelligent and skilled. It's really a shame. We're a lot more crowded, with a lot more capacity for killing each other than ever before
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
MAD is the least likely outcome in this war.
For that to happen,
First, NATO would have to enter the war which is unlikely.
Second, either NATO would have to do something that triggers Russia's stated nuclear policy (invasion of Russia, nuclear strike or attempt to destroy Russia's nuclear capability) which is basically zero percent chance of happening or Putin has to decide he is suicidal, doesn't care about his family or his vision of Russia, then his internal circle has to decide that and the generals giving the orders have to decide the same thing which seems super unlikely.
Interesting take from The War Zone blog: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44592/russia-has-already-lost
I figured if this lasted more than a few weeks it would not be good for Russia, they are in a quagmire of their own making.
In reply to tuna55 :
Or the change in many things in the world since WW2 has changed the way the world works. Previously world leaders could start wars with little threat to themselves. Now starting a war could bring doom to them and their families due to MAD. New weapons of war and fighting tactics means that we have seen time and time again the people living in the nation where the fighting is happening have the upper hand over foreign powers even if the foreign power has the stronger military. Globalization means that people are increasing inter-connected and see the horrors of war meaning it is harder for leaders to start wars. Also Globalization means the economic damage from war means that there is a great resistance from global leaders to war.
Edited cause I had hit submit before I finished.
93EXCivic said:In reply to tuna55 :
Or the change in many things in the world since WW2 has ku
. Previously world leaders could start wars with little threat to themselves. Now starting a war could bring doom to them and their families. Also economies are so interconnected that it makes it hard to start a war
You're not wrong to see that side. I would say that side would not have predicted Russian invasion in Ukraine (nor Georgia, nor Crimea), but you're right. It's a tangled web, with near infinite variables.
tuna55 said:wae said:tuna55 said:02Pilot said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I've lived through roughly the same period you have (a bit shorter), and I've seen the many of the same events (and been close to a couple in various ways). At the same time, this period has been one of exceptional peace and development through much of the world; it just doesn't get the same level of attention. Sources like the History Channel, Wikipedia, and the like are not terribly effective in showing the broader picture. Relying on them without considering the context could certainly leave one with an overdeveloped sense of impending doom.
While true, that stability and peace have been incredible during the past few decades as opposed to the few decades before that, I do not see that as a trend. The same issues are there for the same reason and MAD is the same threat it always was.
My middlest daughter is in AP World History and my eldest is in AP US History and over the course of this year have both had the opportunity to study WWI and WWII, so we've been talking about this as a family quite a lot. How some of the events are similar, how they're different. If the three of us collaborated on a paper to discuss our working thesis, it would probably be titled "Why I'm Glad I'm Not the One Who Has to Decide What To Do Right Now". That said, one of the things that I've been thinking about is that, really, the last 80 years or so have kind of been an abberation when you look at world history, generally. Having first a pandemic and then what is basically a war of conquest is really just kind of how human history has gone since folks started writing stuff down. Perhaps it was a bit of hubris for us to think that we had conquered both nature and human nature and left those behind us...
That's a helpful thought. You're right, the peace has been a blip. Is it a lasting blip? I doubt it. People are the same. We have a remarkable tendency to dismiss those that came before us as simpletons and less intelligent and skilled. It's really a shame. We're a lot more crowded, with a lot more capacity for killing each other than ever before
But everyone on the planet is also wealthier, and has more stuff to lose through war. Fat, comfortable people are not likely to start something that will cause them to involuntarily lose weight and comfort.
One could argue that MAD is the thing most responsible for the lack of direct superpower military conflict during the Cold War. There were no small number of well-informed people who felt that SDI was enormously dangerous because if implemented it would end MAD and create incentives for a first strike.
Small or regional wars continued under MAD, largely unaffected by it, except in generating concerns about escalation (see for example LBJs decision-making on bombing targets in North Vietnam). Peace and development refer to lack of general war, and a broad improvement of global economic productivity, respectively. Development occurs most readily in the absence of global conflict. While there's no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely - and indeed there's a strong chance that it will not - MAD provides a countervailing force that reduces, rather than increases, the incentives for escalation.
Ran across some interesting reading on the notes on Russia using a hypersonic missile. There's a long read about hypersonic missiles here. It was published in February on defending against hypersonic missiles. One takeaway is that the Kinzhal hypersonic missile may have a cool name, but it's fairly crude as far as things covered under the term "hypersonic missile." It's basically a 1/3 scale Scud with better maneuverability and targeting that you can launch from an airplane.
02Pilot said:One could argue that MAD is the thing most responsible for the lack of direct superpower military conflict during the Cold War. There were no small number of well-informed people who felt that SDI was enormously dangerous because if implemented it would end MAD and create incentives for a first strike.
Small or regional wars continued under MAD, largely unaffected by it, except in generating concerns about escalation (see for example LBJs decision-making on bombing targets in North Vietnam). Peace and development refer to lack of general war, and a broad improvement of global economic productivity, respectively. Development occurs most readily in the absence of global conflict. While there's no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely - and indeed there's a strong chance that it will not - MAD provides a countervailing force that reduces, rather than increases, the incentives for escalation.
I hear that, and yet I think that as I said earlier, a laser operated SDI broadly given to every country would create a more peaceful life, not less.
Peace is relative.
As I see it, there hasn't been a moment in the last 80 years were there was actually global peace. There was conflict in the world immediately post WWII, and it's been going on somewhere continuously. The US has played their part in that, too- directly in Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait/Iraq, etc as well as the not so obvious in Central and South America. We did an amazing job keeping conflict going in our own back yard.
What hasn't happened was global war. And in the context of history, that's actually pretty rare anyway- some say that the war that was along with the American Revolution was the real first world war, but the big World War between 1914 and 1944 (I know it was two shorter wars, but they are so related to each other...), where the entire world gets involved can only happen in a modern context- with the ability of rapid travel. Unless there's massive escalation, that's not going to happen.
The part that I still can't really comprehend in this whole thing is what is Putin's end game? What in the world did he expect to get? Granted, there are some resources in Ukraine- but the risk/benefit is really tight. And I keep hearing how he was pleaded to not do this, as it really risked putting Russia back at least 30 years in terms of it's world standing- so far, that part has totally played out- with companies like Aeroflot seizing hundreds of millions in assets at the direction of Putin- who in the world would want to invest in Russia?? It's going to take a decade of stable leadership other than Putin for companies to take the risk. Heck, even if I was a Chinese company, there's a real risk of assets being seized- so what's the point?
And all of Europe's response to this war should have been expected- this is a repeat of WWII, and pretty much every single person sees it, and does not want it.
From what I can tell- Putin was warned about this outcome many times, all the way up to the invasion. And he still chose to ignore it.
BTW, the biggest difference between this and the other invasions is that civilians have been targeted from the get go. Which has really doomed Russia into a galvanized opponent, where the non-military is taking an active role.
One thing that I see stated a lot is if Russia uses nukes, the US has to be the country to respond.
Why not France? They are closer and have the capability plus can be ornery as hell
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:One thing that I see stated a lot is if Russia uses nukes, the US has to be the country to respond.
Why not France? They are closer and have the capability plus can be ornery as hell
Mebbe it's me, but the LAST thing I want is a "tit-for-tat" nuking by anybody in response to Vlad touching one off. (If he fires a half dozen, that's something different...) I think we have to give the Russian people a chance to change course. If they endorse Vlad's strategy or the Russians launch a second nuke/volley then it's game on... :(
In reply to alfadriver :
Putin believes that NATO is a threat to Russia. He miscalculated that the war is turning out to be similar to the Afghan war, but I think he calculated correctly going to war with Ukraine effectively prevents them to ever join NATO, which I imagine is a win for Russia. The loss of lives and the carpetbagging that will ensue after this very unfortunate.
irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:
Well I guess that answers our questions from the last few pages, they can indeed destroy Russian warships. Based on what little I know about their supply chain, it's unlikely those ships will ever be repaired.,
tuna55 said:93EXCivic said:In reply to tuna55 :
Or the change in many things in the world since WW2 has ku
. Previously world leaders could start wars with little threat to themselves. Now starting a war could bring doom to them and their families. Also economies are so interconnected that it makes it hard to start a war
You're not wrong to see that side. I would say that side would not have predicted Russian invasion in Ukraine (nor Georgia, nor Crimea), but you're right. It's a tangled web, with near infinite variables.
I unfortunately had hit submit accidentally before I had finished but just to be clear, I believe things beyond MAD are partly responsible for the relative peace of the post WW2 war and especially of the past 30 years.
stroker said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:One thing that I see stated a lot is if Russia uses nukes, the US has to be the country to respond.
Why not France? They are closer and have the capability plus can be ornery as hell
Mebbe it's me, but the LAST thing I want is a "tit-for-tat" nuking by anybody in response to Vlad touching one off. (If he fires a half dozen, that's something different...) I think we have to give the Russian people a chance to change course. If they endorse Vlad's strategy or the Russians launch a second nuke/volley then it's game on... :(
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Using nukes is stupid in any situation, I'm just kinda stunned at how much the media really wants USA heavily involved here
You'll need to log in to post.
