NATO starts deploying troops as Russia races to win
NATO starts deploying troops as Russia races to win
NATO is starting to deploy combat troops to Ukraine. Soldiers from Poland, France, the UK, Finland and other NATO members are arriving in
You're viewing a single thread.
Barring the potential, albeit low, threat of nuclear holocaust, because, as always, that's not worth thinking about...
Nice. More dead NATO specialists.
I gotta copy and paste this:
I’m highly skeptical that this conflict would go nuclear. It’s unfortunately always a possibility, and people, especially Amerikkkan imperialists nutjobs, can and will do stupid things without thinking about the actions of their consequences, but my two-fold thinking is that not only is nuclear-war really unlikely to happen (or way less than most people think) I think it would very likely also be less destructive, depending on how things go.
People always imagine that in a nuclear war scenario, all bets are off, but I don’t think so. There is usually some sense, even in chaos.
Most or all of the most devastating nuclear weapons were disarmed several decades ago, and the most powerful nuclear weapons today would be able to destroy or damage large cities, even at the most. And yes, there are thousands of nuclear weapons.
But due to the decreased potency of even the strongest nuclear weapons, and there still being a very finite number, even the capitalists probably understand that an irradiated world would be a terrible place to lord over, even if you survive.
Nuclear weapons would most likely and would best be used to damage, delay and destroy military and industrial centers, and with how interconnected the world is now because of the internet, gps, cell phones, and supply chains, a country would be way less likely to get involved in combat when it’s industrial bases, bourgeois palaces and military-intelligence strongholds are utterly demolished, out of basic resources and power and labor, things would resolve relatively quickly, pacifying countries out of a fight with relatively few deaths, since there is no point in launching weapons at massive populations centers if it can be helped, since it would just invite more war, death, destruction, disease, sadness, vengeance, danger.
I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.
I think/hope/imagine that if or when NATO is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, that China, Russia, Iran, Palestine and the DPRK would already be 20 steps ahead, they have been planning for this for decades.
China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.
I hope it never comes to it, but I think a potential World War 3 would be mostly conventional warfare, and even if it isn’t, a nuclear war wouldn’t mean the death of all or even most of humanity (hopefully) and things would resolve in the Global South’s and socialism’s favor no matter what.
I can’t speak for the Global North, but I find it hard to believe that those launching nuclear weapons would just shoot them everywhere all over the place at civilians, that would be ridiculously stupid, even in an extreme scenario, all but signing the death warrant of the human species, and targeting civilian and food storehouses and infrastructure would be worse than pointless, it would be stupid.
I don't know what about the history of the United States government would lead you to believe that they wouldn't prefer total nuclear planetary annihilation to military defeat. "We're taking it all with us when we go" has been the underlying premise of US policy on climate, economy, and geopolitics for my entire life. The US is not going to discover restraint after they've started firing nukes.
I figure that at least some of the U.S. government/bourgeoisie would surrender, at least enough to spare their own lives, and they will need to be hunted down and rooted out over time to prevent their resurgence among the levers of power.
I'm not saying the U.S. will discover restraint, especially after firing nukes. I'm just stating that at least some of the Amerikkkan imperialists must have a degree of self-preservation to not want to risk the entire globe when they could scatter away and fight later.
The U.S. Empire is fascist and short-term thinking, but it's not completely stupid, it's evil usually makes some kind of twisted sense. It's better to plan for the worst and hope for the best, but I believe overestimating your enemy is almost as bad as underestimating.
I figure that at least some of the U.S. government/bourgeoisie would surrender, at least enough to spare their own lives
Amerikkkan imperialists must have a degree of self-preservation to not want to risk the entire globe when they could scatter away and fight later
There's no excuse for this level of wishful thinking about global nuclear war. The United States is not going to launch a limited nuclear strike against another nuclear power and then surrender in the hopes that its leadership will be left alive. Nobody on earth would accept a surrender that left those people alive after a nuclear first strike. If the US launches on another nuclear power, the US only survives by completely obliterating every other non-occupied nuclear power before they have a chance to respond. If the US does a nuclear first strike without completely disabling any potential response, every other non-occupied nuclear power in the world would be obligated to immediately unload everything they have on the US. To do anything less would leave a country with no credible deterrent to US attack, and the US would be obligated to exploit that vulnerability to eliminate the threat to its hegemony. A nuclear exchange will either end in the total destruction of the United States, or total US world domination. Either option means uncountable dead and complete global economic and environmental collapse no matter who rules the wasteland. For average people that amounts to quick death or slow death. An improvement in anybody's current living conditions would not be in the cards.
The personal sense of self-preservation in individual members of the national bourgeoisie or congressional middle men doesn't matter at all if one senile dipshit with one foot in the grave pushes the button. It doesn't even matter what a majority of the US ruling class thinks if a few true believers in the right positions with enough hubris and self-delusion decide to gamble that the benefits of winning outweigh the likelihood of retaliation. It's all or nothing once the first nuke flies. There can be no reconsideration or negotiation after that threshold is crossed. It's either live by killing the enemy completely, or die taking them with you.
First of all, on the "irradiated world" and less devastating nukes. Modern nukes are way more efficient. More fuel reacts -> bigger boom and less pollution. Also, destruction of industry and infrastructure don't happen in a vacuum. Subsequent chaos is gonna claim many more lives.
And the part about Russian and Chinese defense systems is hella wishful thinking. Maybe China can do something like that, but if anything, war in Ukraine showed that Russian electronic warfare capabilities have been overestimated as hell. All the "sanctions" on chips won't help either.
Modern nuclear weapons are way more efficient, of course, but the overall payload of most nuclear weapons is way lower than it was during the cold war.
I know that the destruction of industry and infrastructure, chaos, and loss of lives isn't in a vacuum, and there is a metric-shit ton of overlap. I never said it was going to be easy or that the loss of life wouldn't not be tragic.
I don't think it's wishful thinking, it's what I've been reading about China's technological capability, and Russia to a lesser extent. Again, not saying that China or Russia are invincible, and I think that neoliberals commentators have a huge tendency to downplay or underestimate Russia. Russia is a fucking workhorse, and while it still takes massive effort and loss and labor and resource intensity, keep in mind that the special military operation is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. I figure that Russia's full potential hasn't even begun to be utilized or unleashed yet, and Russia is saving it's best toys and shit for when it truly needs them. The problems in the early phase of the SMO were caused by some combination of corruption and underestimating NATO's support for Ukraine, but the cuffs are off now. Unless I'm missing something, Russia's SMO is still only a partial mobilization.
Imminent potential destruction is one thing that motivates Russia as a whole, for the better part of a century now, roughly speaking.
I've been reading reports about the SMO lately, and I'm continuously surprised by Russia's thriftiness and multi-faceted approach to countering Ukraine/NATO.
I don't claim to be a military expert, and I understand the situation is extremely dire, and I always advocate being prepared and reasonable and assuming the worst, but I think that time and reality is on our side, for now.
China and Russia’s advanced and partially automated and augmented defense systems would scramble, hack into, shut down, disable, redirect, or outright destroy or prevent nuclear missile launches. Drones would hack into and shut down facilities or weapons themselves. Infrastructure could be shielded and damage minimized in various ways, and supply chains are something that Global South understands intuitively more than the Global North.
I'm sorry but this is not based on any evidence. No nation including the US has this ability. Among other problems for China and Russia, the US systems are pretty old and hardened, they don't have a lot of attack surface, if anyone is going to get their nuclear system hacked and shut down it would be a power with a more modern system (I'm not sure if that describes either China or Russia). US has the largest number of nuclear missile carrying submarines constantly stationed around the world, roving undetected under the waters, waiting for the order to launch 20+ ICBM's each, each carrying 20+ MIRVs, each carrying a warhead. They can park off Russia or China and have their missiles launched and detonations within 10 minutes. The systems for signaling those are very simple, US mainland land-launched weapons also have dedicated hard-line communication lines, they don't use civilian internet or phone infrastructure.
As to intercepting, no nation including the US has more than a few dozen hypersonic kinetic kill sled anti-ICBM weapons to my knowledge. The US has by contrast over 4000 warheads. Even if they launched only a 1/8th of them on the basis that one cannot reliably count on shooting down a warhead with less than 2 interceptors, that's 1000 interceptors required.
You can't plan around physics other than deterrence. Maybe in 40 years with practical laser or particle weapons systems existing in large numbers you could make it impractical but the science simply isn't there yet. If the science were there already the US would be pushing full steam ahead with their own programs so they could strike first and shield themselves. Fact is though that with evasive maneuvers the US's own tests for success rates with their interceptors are rigged to look more rosy than they are. I'd bet China has better results and Russia as well but it's probably not enough because you have to have the numbers.
As to hacking and scrambling, if Russia could dominate in this way they wouldn't be having the problems they have in Ukraine, they'd have done more damage to their infrastructure, they'd have crippled their defense systems, but CIA/NSA hackers are there with them helping them defend against Russian attacks very successfully.
Let's not forget the US has a starting edge here too. They infiltrated deep into China's systems with their Cisco hardware implants and who knows if the Chinese ever rooted all of it out. I'm sure they're not able to actively spy on them as they were because that would be observable and detectable but that doesn't mean they don't have buried in there, inactive, waiting for a special command, some sort of malware that will shut down and destroy their command and control when the moment of total war comes. China is actively fighting a variety of US attacks on it, the US has been paying Chinese civilians with free hobbyist equipment that serves as CIA/NSA radio-equipped attack platforms which China has been trying to round up among many, many other plots no doubt. By contrast the US freaks out if it sees a weather balloon from China so I doubt the Chinese have the same ability. The US is banning Chinese technology on the grounds it could be used by China for electronic warfare and hacking, I doubt the Chinese intended to do this but I think it's projection and shows US plans and projects already well underway.
On shutting down these weapons. They are specifically shielded against EMPs because one of the earliest concepts of nuclear defense was using nuclear detonations in the atmosphere in the path of incoming warheads to attempt to destroy, misdirect, and otherwise neutralize incoming enemy missiles. (See for example NIKE missile program)
As to scrambling, they don't rely entirely on GPS, their paths are calculated using mathematics that don't require active pinging of positioning systems in orbit, after all these were first developed before GPS was even a dream, let alone a reality and had to be able to get to their destinations.
As to decapitating strikes on the US, they have a fleet of always in the air emergency command and control aircraft specifically for the purpose of ensuring that the orders can be carried out (in fact I recently saw an article where the air force is looking to replace their current fleet of these. It was originally called Operation Looking Glass). (Russia by contrast has a system of several missiles which are programmed with emergency launch codes which can be launched and will travel the length of Russia blasting those codes and ordering all warheads to launch called Deadhand. China to my knowledge has no such system and relies on moving their warheads around in secret and plenty of mobile launchers to simply make it harder to hit them all in a first strike sneak attack but which does little for command redundancy)
So I'm sorry but if the US starts a nuclear attack in earnest with any significant number of weapons, the only solace that China and Russia will get is that their own nuclear weapons will destroy American military bases and burn their cities to cinders in retaliation. I find it improbable that one would be intentionally started even by the US, the real risk is an inability to back down and backing Russia into a corner where it has to use nukes.
As to nuclear war's effects. I recommend the movie Threads from 1984 which went to great pains to be factual. There's a saying among nuclear war theorists and planners and it's that those who die in the atomic blasts would be the lucky ones. And that's because such widespread destruction would cripple industry, food, clothing, manufacture of energy, medicine, etc for decades. Tens of millions would die not from fall-out but from starvation, from deprivation, from cold, from heat, from previously treatable diseases and epidemics which would rage in the kindling of such destruction of cities.
I admit I'm not a military expert, and this is just stuff that I've read that China currently has, but hot damn, this situation is even more serious than I thought, which is saying alot.
I've done a surprising amount of reading about the after effects of nuclear war, and I'm very familiar with that phrase "the lucky ones will die in the first blasts". My contentions are that different studies say wildly different outcomes. One recent study I found says that over 99 percent of humanity would die, and others I've read have said that a nuclear exchange would be more limited and less catastrophic than most people think. But regardless, a burning white hot anger is inside me right now. The fucking fascist Amerikkkan states, why can't the country just leave the goddamn world alone?
You can also substitute the effects of nukes without any of their repercussions, even if you're forced to because you don't have nukes & any allies with nuke wouldn't meet that level of escalation, with precision weaponry aimed at important targets instead of wide effect nukes on bases although obviously the latter's always going to be more bang...