(Rest of the) World News: Page 34 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One more in the Tolly

(Rest of the) World News

jones

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/01/caitlin-johnstone-the-single-most-important-question-in-the-world-right-now/

...
Cold war brinkmanship has far too many small, unpredictable moving parts for anyone to feel confident that they can ramp up aggressions without triggering a nuclear exchange. Anyone who feels safe with these games of nuclear chicken simply does not understand them.

To get some insight into how easily an unpredictable scenario can lead to nuclear war I recommend watching this hour-long documentary or reading this article about Vasili Arkhipov, the Soviet submariner who single-handedly saved the world from obliteration during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was one of three senior officers aboard a nuclear-armed sub that was cornered near Cuba by U.S. war ships who did not know the sub had a nuclear weapon on board.

The U.S. navy was dropping explosives onto the sub to get it to surface, and the Soviets didn’t know what they were doing as they had cut off all communications. It took all three senior officers to launch the nuke their ship was armed with, and two of them, thinking this was the beginning of World War 3, saw it as their duty to use it. Only Arkhipov, who had witnessed the horrific effects that radiation can have on the human body during a nuclear-powered submarine meltdown years earlier, refused.

You, and everyone you know, exist because Arkhipov made that decision. Had his personal history and conditioning been a little bit different, or had another officer been on board that particular ship on that particular day, nothing around you right now would be there. We got lucky. So lucky it’s uncomfortable to even think about it. But it’s important to.

This again is just one of the many nuclear close calls we’ve experienced since our species began its insane practice of stockpiling armageddon weapons around the world. We survived the last cold war by sheer, dumb luck. We were never in control. Not once. And there’s no reason to believe we’ll get lucky again.

A 2014 study by Earth’s Future found that just a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would throw 5 Tg of black carbon into the stratosphere, blocking out the sun for decades and potentially starving everything to death. India and Pakistan have 160 and 165 nukes each, respectively. The U.S. and Russia have 5,550 and 6,257.

Burnwinter

If anyone is interested in a very dry long read on latter day changes to Russian military doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons, here's your article.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/04/29/russian_nuclear_doctrine_force_expansion_and_nuclear_deterrence_774957.html

To me the changes read as symptoms of a great power in decline, reducing stated nuclear thresholds due to limits on the capacity for conventional warfare.

The changed nuclear doctrine has both a rhetorical (influence through speculation on the use of nuclear weapons) and operational (actual likelihood of using nukes) significance.

Russia under Putin has also either invented, or claimed to have invented a number of new classes of nuclear weapon that are more or less unstoppable. Nukes are a bigger part of their outlook than ever.

mdgoonah41

jones wrote:
For the world's remaining super power the end game has always been the removal of Putin and the instalment of another Yeltsin who a) would guarantee there's no opposition to be expected in military and nuclear terms and b) would flog Russian resources at bargain prices.

i appreciate your reply and see some of your points. but this last point doesnt really ring true to me. i mean, would the US prefer someone more amenable to US aims and goals? sure. but i dont really see there being any avenue for the US to remove putin. he controls a massive arsenal of nukes. he pretty clearly has been meddling in the US (and we dont have to relitigate everything that happened from 2016-2020, i get the tit for tat stuff), hes been brazen before (crimea) and we havent really done anything about it, and i honestly dont see what we can do about it.

this again sort of brings me back to his motivations. depending on what you read and believe, putin is basically one of the wealthiest people on earth. hes essentially guaranteed to stay in power as long as he wants to through sham elections. hes getting older, but he can realistically stay in charge until the end of his life if he wants, and prior to this bizarre invasion of ukraine, he wasnt under any real threat to his wealth or power within russia. the US wasnt going to unilaterally do anything to remove him. im sure the CIA has fantasized about it for years, but its not going to happen. the only way he could be removed, it seems, is by starting world war III and giving the rest of the world no choice.

i try to not think about nuclear war, because for most of my life (im a xennial, so not super old) its really only been something theoretical that was never seriously a threat. i think that calculus has changed, but i just want to believe that ultimately, no conflict between two groups is worth wiping out the entire planet. then again, i never imagined people would object to something as simple as wearing a mask to prevent catching a potentially deadly disease, so maybe i just dont know anything anymore.

Klaus

Klaus wrote:
I moved to Visby on Gotland about a year ago; it's this small place on an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea that is mostly famous for the way it has incorporated medieval ruins into its modern cityscape. The whole place looks like something out of a Harry Potter movie. 3-4 times per week since I moved here I've heard low-flying airforce patrols, often at night, roll in over Visby like thunder as a response to the Russian fighter jets that have been violating Swedish and Finnish airspace for years. I can hear them right now as I'm typing this. This all started years before Russia began to mobilise troops to move against Ukraine.

Case in point:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-armed-forces-says-russian-fighter-jets-violated-swedish-airspace-2022-03-02/

lorddulaarsenal

Gripen’s Klaus?

The U.K. have scrambled a few Typhoon’s to show off nosey Russian aircraft

Gurgen

mdgoonah41 wrote:

Ahead of Biden's speech in Congress on Tuesday, Zelensky urged the President to impress upon Americans the urgency and implications of Russia's invasion.
"He is one of the leaders of the world and it is very important that the people of the United States understand (that) despite the fact that the war is in Ukraine ... it is [a] war for the values of democracy, freedom," Zelensky said.

Zelensky reiterated calls for the US and NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine or put boots on the ground. "I've already addressed and (spoken) to some Western leaders with this request, because I do believe that leaders do have to support democratic countries and they have to help them."

okay. so is this ukraine inviting the US in? the US gets rightly demonized for intervening globally. why is ukraine asking the US to get involved? why arent they just asking for humanitarian aid, accepting refugees, etc? why arent they asking for back channel military support instead of openly asking the US to get involved?

Because they are desperate and on the brink of being obliterated.

mdgoonah41

so it seems there is no desire to establish a no fly zone over ukraine. which ultimately means ukraine is going to get wiped off the map.

this is so fucking tragic.

MistaT

Establishing a no fly zone requires the US, or another entity, to patrol and enforce it. That would quickly be seen as an act of war (by Russia) and in turn we'd see the war spiral beyond Ukraine. Much in the same way the US is hesitant to provide troops or air support, they won't risk enforcing a no fly zone as it would be one closer step to nuclear war.

mdgoonah41

MistaT wrote:
Establishing a no fly zone requires the US, or another entity, to patrol and enforce it. That would quickly be seen as an act of war (by Russia) and in turn we'd see the war spiral beyond Ukraine. Much in the same way the US is hesitant to provide troops or air support, they won't risk enforcing a no fly zone as it would be one closer step to nuclear war.

oh thats absolutely correct, but its just tragic.

Coombs

Surrender seemed like the only option 2 weeks ago. The fighting is so unnecessary if the outcome is virtually guaranteed, no?

Mirth

Depends on what you view as the outcome. To me it looks like this is just beginning and violence will last in one form or another for a while to come.

mdgoonah41

so is this just going to turn into the late 70s/early 80s afghanistan, where other countries funnel weapons into a country and prop up that country to fight against russia without actually doing it themselves?

Burnwinter

Hillary Clinton suggested as much in a somewhat "mask off" television soundbite.

The thing about the regime of sanctions is that presumably it's also hurting Russia's trade partners to some extent.

If or when the active conflict ends (weeks, at least?) in terms of a negotiated ceasefire or settlement, there's surely going to be a persistent and well-funded push for non-military regime change in Russia. I think this has done for Putin in the medium term.

Mirth

Burnwinter wrote:
The thing about the regime of sanctions is that presumably it's also hurting Russia's trade partners to some extent.

Russia's major trade partners are China and Germany. In their books Russia isn't a significant partner in terms of value of goods and services. They should be able to swallow that cost

However, when it comes to energy dependency then it's a different story but I believe the sanctions skirt around commodities anyway.

Burnwinter

Yeah, fair enough. The hurt on the other side probably isn't so bad, but it's still there and will eventually become an incentive to withdraw the sanctions for some countries (China first, perhaps).

I want to say the thread that follows here is a "brilliant" exposition of the state of Russian parliamentarism, but since it's the only one I've read, I'll just say it's pretty compelling and informative.

jones

Mirth wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
The thing about the regime of sanctions is that presumably it's also hurting Russia's trade partners to some extent.

Russia's major trade partners are China and Germany. In their books Russia isn't a significant partner in terms of value of goods and services. They should be able to swallow that cost

However, when it comes to energy dependency then it's a different story but I believe the sanctions skirt around commodities anyway.

The sanctioning regime wasn't implemented last month, it's been going for ages and the damage is absolutely significant for Germany. The figures quoted by the relevant German industry associations are in the hundreds (!) of billions since the sanctions started (or gained steam) in 2014.

They don't hit commodities the same way as remaining exports and imports but it's not like the burial of Nord Stream 2 doesn't have any effect, remember the twitter account you quoted stating Germany's intention to build LNG terminals in anticipation of importing American fracking gas. The US itself of course couldn't imagine a better outcome to this whole situation, just like when they hit Venezuela with massive embargoes they keep buying Russian oil and can reduce the oversupply of their own fracking gas by finding a new market for it while Germany is busy lobbying subsidies for it on EU level.

jones

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/international-cat-federation-bans-russian-felines-competitions-rcna18595

The International Cat Federation has banned Russian cats from international competitions, condemning the invasion of Ukraine as an "unprecedented act of aggression."

😆

jones

goon

Saw that yesterday, absolutely hilarious 😆

Mirth

😆

« Previous Page Next Page »