So long as it doesnt hurt me?

[Publius]

I really hate disliking your posts, I like you a lot sir. But firmly believe this sentiment is why all out nuclear war will happen. This... I am so sorry as I respect the hell out of you... But it is naive to even think it. To even temp it. To even fathom it. As to do so is to temp fate. That is exactly how you get world war three is though your sentiment.

If our leaders even remotely think like this. Then we deserve all out nuclear annihilation for even trying to play with such a fire. It's. Just dumb to even complicate IMHO.

Think like what, in a box? I’m not saying if nukes were to be used it would not likely escalate. I’m only saying another land war in Europe does not guarantee an escalation to nuclear war.
How many close calls happened during the Cold War? During the current war in Ukraine.
What stayed the Soviets hand when they knew they were going to loose the arms race in the 80’s and the USSR was going to collapse from using a massive first strike? They were in essence loosing an existential war for the survival of the empire.

It is the knowledge that in doing so would result in a massive retaliatory response. Which is still losing.
I’m not placing odds or probabilities on the risk.

I am saying making unequivocal statements of facts on “assumptions” is not intellectually honest or lead to informed conclusions.

 

[DarkNoon]

Think like what, in a box? I’m not saying if nukes were to be used it would not likely escalate. I’m only saying another land war in Europe does not guarantee an escalation to nuclear war.
How many close calls happened during the Cold War? During the current war in Ukraine.
What stayed the Soviets hand when they knew they were going to loose the arms race in the 80’s and the USSR was going to collapse from using a massive first strike? They were in essence loosing an existential war for the survival of the empire.

It is the knowledge that in doing so would result in a massive retaliatory response. Which is still losing.
I’m not placing odds or probabilities on the risk.

I am saying making unequivocal statements of facts on “assumptions” is not intellectually honest or lead to informed conclusions.

Sorry. But think it's dumb to try and "quantify" or even remotely "pontificate" such ideas. Just because one can game it in their head. Does not mean it should ever be tested or even truly brought up in any serious manner/discussion or real world policy makers upper atmosphere of contemplation.

Because frankly if any leader anywhere is thinking even remotely like this "box" you speak of which should just remain a fantasy and totally out of any real discussion:

Then we deserve all out nuclear annihilation for even trying to play with such a fire.

It's not about possibilities because anything is possible. It's about realism. You play with such a fire you DESERVE to die by such a fire for being dumb enough to play with it. Period. IMHO. To even remotely think you can win or wage a nuclear war is beyond absurd, PURE DARWINISM AWARD WORTHY IDEA. Plain and simple.

 

[DarkNoon]

Sorry. But think it's dumb to try and "quantify" or even remotely "pontificate" such ideas. Just because one can game it in their head. Does not mean it should ever be tested or even truly brought up in any serious manner/discussion or real world policy makers upper atmosphere of contemplation.

Because frankly if any leader anywhere is thinking even remotely like this "box" you speak of which should just remain a fantasy and totally out of any real discussion:



It's not about possibilities because anything is possible. It's about realism. You play with such a fire you DESERVE to die by such a fire for being dumb enough to play with it. Period. IMHO. To even remotely think you can win or wage a nuclear war is beyond absurd, PURE DARWINISM AWARD WORTHY IDEA. Plain and simple.

I suppose the most simplistic way to get my message across is. Fuck around and find out. Or even more simply, "just askin' for trouble".

 

[Librarylady]

There was a time that this question wouldn't even have to be asked. But times change. When I was in college it was an absolute given that the Berlin Wall would NEVER fall without an all out war between NATO and the USSR. Europe was clearly the flashpoint.

Now? I don't see the US going all out to defend Europe -- sending weapons and intel, sure, but not committing to WWIII . There are other areas of the globe that are more important to us now.

 

[Publius]

Sorry. But think it's dumb to try and "quantify" or even remotely "pontificate" such ideas. Just because one can game it in their head. Does not mean it should ever be tested or even truly brought up in any serious manner/discussion or real world policy makers upper atmosphere of contemplation.

Because frankly if any leader anywhere is thinking even remotely like this "box" you speak of which should just remain a fantasy and totally out of any real discussion:



It's not about possibilities because anything is possible. It's about realism. You play with such a fire you DESERVE to die by such a fire for being dumb enough to play with it. Period. IMHO. To even remotely think you can win or wage a nuclear war is beyond absurd, PURE DARWINISM AWARD WORTHY IDEA. Plain and simple.

Show me where I said a nuclear war could be won.

and…… as far as any certainties one cannot quantify with certainty a land war in Europe with Russia would undoubtedly escalate to a nuclear war.

There is no winning a nuclear war AND that is the reason over the last 70 years so many of the off ramps to escalation did not escalate.
There is only surviving nuclear war…… and badly without a doubt.


Why is this distinction important. Poorly evaluating the potential future chance of a land war by assuming no nation would in-fact risk it. Why? Because of course it would undoubtedly escalate to nukes, therefore it’s unthinkable. Is potentially making an incorrect assumption.
It’s kinda like just assuming Russia is going to make a play for Lithuania eventually, why? Because they’re Russian and Russia must secure the Fulda gap. Why else.

 

[Publius]

There was a time that this question wouldn't even have to be asked. But times change. When I was in college it was an absolute given that the Berlin Wall would NEVER fall without an all out war between NATO and the USSR. Europe was clearly the flashpoint.

Now? I don't see the US going all out to defend Europe -- sending weapons and intel, sure, but not committing to WWIII . There are other areas of the globe that are more important to us now.

Exactly and those changes were in part due to changing geopolitical realities.
And also impart based on untested assumptions.

 

[DarkNoon]

When the crisis with Iran over or calms its tits trust me I'll get back to you.

 

[DarkNoon]

When the crisis with Iran over or calms its tits trust me I'll get back to you.

I swear. The universe works in funny ways... Said what I said above and literally less than a hour later:

URGENT | The 4th meeting between Israeli and Lebanese representatives, convened by the US and beginning two days ago (Monday), ended tonight. As a result, Israel and Lebanon agreed to implement a ceasefire - which includes a complete cessation of Hezbollah fire and the evacuation of all Hezbollah operatives from the southern Litani sector, the Saudi newspaper "Asharq" reported.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2062313938570629240

View attachment 9139

So. Looks like I'll eat my words soon enough....