|
|
Post by pacific on Mar 12, 2024 7:09:05 GMT -5
Its highly unlikely that someone develops a catch all system that is 100% risk free. Nuclear subs were developed in response to the first strike risk. Current missile defenses led to the development of hypersonic missiles. Other defenses might be found, but other weapons might be developed that rival nuclear weapons in response. It's always a race, but it has never created an absolute advantage post 1949 for either side. But even if you have a 100% risk free defense, most countries won't just go around nuking people, because that gains nothing on paper and obviously hurts you internationally. Wars would still have to be fought by armies to achieve objectives, which can still be very costly in lives. The defensive deterrence value improves, but what country is going to risk attacking the guy with consequence free nukes? It's a bit like Afghanistan, Iraq or Ukraine. All opponents without nuclear weapons, but nuclear weapons weren't deployed by the attacker because it gains nothing. I agree with all of the above, with the only caveat to this is the advent of use of tactical nuclear weapons, designed to be used on the battlefield, which both the US and Russia now have the potential to deploy. These still result in an enormous amount of damage but nothing on the scale of a strategic nuclear weapon (something like an ICBM, which nuclear subs can carry) - analysts have said there is the possibility that Russia might deploy one to destroy a Ukrainian army base or small town if a large volume of defending forces were stationed there. I think on the one hand the fact that Putin hasn't deployed one yet I think underwhelms his threats of the conflict escalating to nuclear, in the sense that this would represent a far smaller step towards nuclear war/MAD. The opposing argument to that is that it would however move the doomsday clock a bit closer towards midnight, as apparently the approach to build some of these weapons is just to remove fissile material from the warhead - so early warning detection systems would have no idea that the missile would cause a smaller impact to a fully-fledged strategic weapon, and so could still trigger a conflict. There has also been some argument that it could result in 'uncorking the bottle' of the current taboo of deployment of nuclear weaponry, and others would follow. |
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Mar 12, 2024 7:15:51 GMT -5
Would many of the NK soldiers want to continue a guerilla insurgency, or would they surrender to the West at their first opportunity? It'd hopefully get them fed and away to safety, though the US at least doesn't have a great track record of being nice to POWs. Bearing in mind that in North Korea they have an element of education and propaganda control that make the authoritarian control in Imperial Japan in the last century look soft by comparison. In WW2 one of the big argument for the use of the atomic bombs was that if the US had not shown such an overwhelming display of power, it would have required an invasion of the Japanese homeland - I cannot recall the exact figures that were mooted, but it was an absolutely enormous figure (on both sides) and would have extended WW2 by some time. I think North Korea would be similar, the current generation of military will have been utterly brainwashed since they were born and I think would probably fight until the death. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 12, 2024 8:57:14 GMT -5
Would many of the NK soldiers want to continue a guerilla insurgency, or would they surrender to the West at their first opportunity? It'd hopefully get them fed and away to safety, though the US at least doesn't have a great track record of being nice to POWs. Bearing in mind that in North Korea they have an element of education and propaganda control that make the authoritarian control in Imperial Japan in the last century look soft by comparison. In WW2 one of the big argument for the use of the atomic bombs was that if the US had not shown such an overwhelming display of power, it would have required an invasion of the Japanese homeland - I cannot recall the exact figures that were mooted, but it was an absolutely enormous figure (on both sides) and would have extended WW2 by some time. I think North Korea would be similar, the current generation of military will have been utterly brainwashed since they were born and I think would probably fight until the death. 1 million deaths. There is a lot of debate about the impact of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (A LOT) but I don't think the US estimates are disputed much. The main contention comes over whether the nuclear bombs or the Soviet Union invading the Sakhalin islands were the primary factor pushing Japanese leadership to finally surrender. I think both were factors but lean on the nuclear weapons being a bigger factor overall. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Mar 12, 2024 11:21:55 GMT -5
I think North Korea launching nukes might actually prompt an agreement between the US and China to let China steamroll NK. China absolutely wouldn't want an American war right on their doorstep, but at the same time they obviously can't accept a North Korea that's launching nukes either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Mar 12, 2024 12:02:26 GMT -5
The problem with tactical nuclear weapons is that you can basically build a conventional weapon that yields similar results. As you say, it risks escalation, but for no real gain. Would many of the NK soldiers want to continue a guerilla insurgency, or would they surrender to the West at their first opportunity? It'd hopefully get them fed and away to safety, though the US at least doesn't have a great track record of being nice to POWs. Bearing in mind that in North Korea they have an element of education and propaganda control that make the authoritarian control in Imperial Japan in the last century look soft by comparison. In WW2 one of the big argument for the use of the atomic bombs was that if the US had not shown such an overwhelming display of power, it would have required an invasion of the Japanese homeland - I cannot recall the exact figures that were mooted, but it was an absolutely enormous figure (on both sides) and would have extended WW2 by some time. I think North Korea would be similar, the current generation of military will have been utterly brainwashed since they were born and I think would probably fight until the death. I think we have to be very careful about equating propaganda and indoctrination with WW2 Japan. A lot of estimates on how an invasion of Japan would go fluctuated wildly casualty wise between a few hundred thousand to millions, but on the reverse we have the Manchurian campaign, where the Soviets absolutely crushed a massive Japanese force with negligible casualties, i.e. a force 10 times larger than on Okinawa, with comparable casualties to the US. The atomic bomb argument is only a partial reason. The US was turning whole cities to ash since 1943, but the collapse in Manchuria was a blow to Japan's ideas of actually being able to hold out longer. It also gave rise to the fear of a Soviet invasion and further isolated them politically, as they had hoped the Soviets could help negotiate with the US. We also have examples of authoritarian regimes collapsing or almost collapsing because their troops were unwilling to fight (on). Nazi Germany had plenty of troops surrender after +/- 12 years of indoctrination. The Soviets lost millions of troops in WW2 to surrender after +/- 20 years. I don't know if you want to count Saddam's Iraq in 2003, in power for 20 years. There is a reason North Korea is built like a prison camp, and it's not blind devotion of all the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Mar 12, 2024 12:14:42 GMT -5
I think North Korea launching nukes might actually prompt an agreement between the US and China to let China steamroll NK. China absolutely wouldn't want an American war right on their doorstep, but at the same time they obviously can't accept a North Korea that's launching nukes either. I wonder if China would be confident/secure enough to let the US carry out the attack, but then take over 'peacekeeping' duties afterward. Would be a win-win situation for the US and China. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 14, 2024 7:42:53 GMT -5
Real bad situation in Haiti currently. Seems like a fairly predictable outcome of consistently denying Haitian self-determination in favour of US- and France-friendly puppet leaders.
Apparently the US still doesn't think Haiti has been punished enough for their successful slave revolution and is angling to install another government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 14, 2024 8:13:32 GMT -5
I think it is worth mentioning the Sudanese civil war in its own right here.
Essentially a war between two military factions. The former dictator built two rival power blocks to play off against each other and reduce the risk of a coup. One was the traditional military (Sudanese Armed Forces), the other was a paramilitary group (Rapid Support Forces) derived from a tribal ethnic group in the west of the country that has committed genocides in that area (estimates of 300000 killed previously) and does a lot of mercenary work. However, eventually these two groups did work together to depose the president and promptly started fighting over the power vacuum.
Now there is a full blown war in which the conventional army is better equipped, but has less experienced soldiery leading to no clear advantage. The RSF is also widely believed to be committing a fresh genocide. Both sides are heavily involved in multiple (!) proxy wars. Saudi Arabia supports the SDA, UAE supports the RSF with the aims of getting influence over the Red Sea. Russia supports the RSF to get access to gold. Ukraine is supporting the SDA to counter Russia. The US nominally supports the SDA, but in practice is allies with both the Saudis and the UAE and doesn't want to piss off either.
There is also a third faction in the south of guerilla rebels from ethnic minorities aligned with South Sudan. They are actively trying to succeed and join South Sudan, partly in an effort to protect themselves from further genocides by the RSF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Mar 14, 2024 11:29:43 GMT -5
It is hard to say what the way forward would be for Haiti, a lot has been tried foreign intervention wise. But between that and the natural disasters, it has only gotten worse.
As for Sudan, you sort of see this repeat in a lot of countries without a strong sense of nation or ideology. A bunch of groups mixed together with little that unites them beyond a paycheck, struggling against a group with a clear sense of identity and/or ideology to motivate them. Just on the African continent alone we have seen it multiple times in the last decade. It seems you have to support the state in Sudan by default, because as you say, the alternative is even worse. It seems likely to go on for years, similar to Libya or Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 14, 2024 15:50:30 GMT -5
It is hard to say what the way forward would be for Haiti, a lot has been tried foreign intervention wise. But between that and the natural disasters, it has only gotten worse. As for Sudan, you sort of see this repeat in a lot of countries without a strong sense of nation or ideology. A bunch of groups mixed together with little that unites them beyond a paycheck, struggling against a group with a clear sense of identity and/or ideology to motivate them. Just on the African continent alone we have seen it multiple times in the last decade. It seems you have to support the state in Sudan by default, because as you say, the alternative is even worse. It seems likely to go on for years, similar to Libya or Syria. I think Haiti probably needs to be left alone to choose its own government, and then when it inevitably ends up with a pro-Haitian leader to actually pay it reparations for being forced to pay for the freed slaves in the past. Obviously it is a problem to leave alone when a genocide might be about to happen... but then the US is quite capable of turning a blind eye to genocides when it suits them... Yeah, this is Sudan's... 3rd civil war since it gained independence? |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 2, 2024 4:37:43 GMT -5
So, an air strike has occurred on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, most probably carried out by Israel.
This is almost certainly considered an act of war and grounds for Iran to declare war on Israel in self-defense under international law.
This might be the moment where the proxy wars become a mainstream conflict. I sincerely hope not! A generalised war would be devastating for the region. I don't think it is in Iran's interest to declare war but they may feel they have no choice after such a blatant act of aggression against them.
Israel is clearly a rogue state at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 2, 2024 9:43:25 GMT -5
There will be no official war.
It will stay unofficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 2, 2024 11:58:24 GMT -5
There will be no official war. It will stay unofficial. I think this is the more likely outcome but I wouldn't rule out an open war between Israel and Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Apr 2, 2024 13:00:59 GMT -5
I assume its a calculated move to force Iran to respond through Hezbollah. The Gaza war is heading towards a resolution and international support is running very low. What better way to go for Netanyahu to reinforce his position and get some more international support from having to defend Israel from Hezbollah and invade Lebanon?
Its a great plan, because where is the Western condemnation for bombing an Iranian diplomatic office?
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 2, 2024 15:57:01 GMT -5
The lack of condemnation is really worrying, it really undermines the very bedrock of international rule of law moreso than Gaza.
Nation states simply don't attack diplomatic missions, even for geopolitical enemies. This is the first time since the current world order began in 1945. Israel is really beyond the pale here and it is a deeply worrying development.
|
|
