this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
53 points (93.4% liked)
doomer
953 readers
32 users here now
What is Doomer? :(
It is a nebulous thing that may include but is not limited to Climate Change posts or Collapse posts.
Include sources when applicable for doomer posts, consider checking out [email protected] once in awhile.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it's directly and logically countering your argument.
Your exact quote I was responding to:
Please provide evidence to demonstrate how Russia is more dangerous to NATO than NATO is to Russia.
Regarding your other questions, I already explained my rationale in another part of this post. I would have much preferred that Russia would have found some other solution to address the existential threat that NATO poses to them, but I can understand their reasoning for doing it this way. They made the calculation that offense would be the best defense, which is valid at any level of self-defense.
I'm not making a moral argument. I'm making a realistic geopolitics argument. If you want a hypothetical involving the US, I have a perfect one that parallels what has happened: what exactly do you think the US would do if Mexico were already in a full military alliance with Russia and China expressly created to be anti-US, and Canada announced that it was planning to join that same alliance? Please answer this question.
Edit: to make the opening less confrontational.
Again, can you demonstrate that Russia has used more coercive tactics, chaos, disruptions, and corruption for geo-strategic advantage than the West has used since 1991? If you want to go back further than that, let's include the much more sordid record of the US overthrowing governments left, right, and center around the world. The military dictatorships, the death squads, etc. The point I'm making is that the West, particularly the US since the end of WWII, is in no position to claim cleaner hands than Russia, and least of all use that claim to justify their actions as being more well-intentioned than Russia's.
If countries next door to yours which are allied to a major historical foe (known for using underhanded tactics to manipulate and overthrow governments and for starting major wars) having missiles, including nuclear ones, pointed at you is not a threat, I'm not sure what you would consider a threat. For comparison, the US nearly completely lost its shit when tiny Cuba had a handful of Russian nukes located there. If you can't see why Russia would be extremely concerned about a powerful, armed anti-Russia coalition immediately next door to them, I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion.
You're trying to twist my words into something they're not. That part of the conversation was relating to your assertion that Russia was so threatening that it justified NATO expansion. I see that you also didn't address the second part of my last post, about why Russia would feel existentially threatened by that same NATO expansion.
From NATO's own mouth:
Despite their claims that NATO had/has any purposes other than as a Soviet deterrent, that was its main purpose and as such it should have been dissolved or fundamentally restructured after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But no, it continued on and now its main role continues to be as an anti-Russia alliance.
Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - maybe the nuclear missiles aren't pointed at Russia and ready to be launched at the press of a button, but do you think that the US keeps over 100 nuclear weapons (by 2021) in 5 European countries for anything other than to use it against Russia at short notice?
It seems that you just can't see things from Russia's perspective. I ask again, how would the US react if Mexico had Russian-controlled nuclear weapons based there and Canada started moving to join the same "defensive" alliance? This is not whataboutism, but to illustrate that NATO is understandably seen by Russia as a major threat to their national security. Does their perspective not matter?
Yes, I've mentioned multiple times in this thread including in the discussion with you that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. NATO should've rightfully been dissolved a short time after that.
You keep moving around and not addressing my questions. Let me simplify it: would you feel threatened by an adversarial nation from a different continent across an ocean placing a bunch of nuclear weapons in a country neighboring yours? Yes or no?
The first and primary reason for NATO existing: "deterring Soviet expansionism". Distance makes a lot of difference. 30 minutes for a missile from the US to reach Russia. 2-3 minutes for one from Europe to reach them. That's enough of a difference for people to get into bunkers or not. You are being disingenuous in not admitting that bringing nuclear weapons across an ocean and placing them next door will be perceived as very threatening, regardless of whatever explanations are given. Think about how asymmetric that power is too. The US reaches Russia in 2-3 minutes with their nuclear weapons, while it would take Russia 30 minutes to do the same. It means Russia would effectively be largely wiped out before they would have a chance to return fire to the US.
Since you're just not willing to admit that such "defensive" moves can feel very threatening to another country despite evidence and logic, there's no point in discussing further.
I haven't mentioned a submarine in any of my posts. You're the one who brought them up. I'm not concerned about the scenario that I described because the country I live in doesn't have nuclear weapons from a distant foe nearby. We were discussing why Russia would legitimately feel that these things were a serious national security threat, but I see you're intent on sealioning. I've had enough of it, so I will not be responding further.
Edit: on second thought, I've blocked you since you're not willing to have an honest discussion.
Edit 2: unblocked you because I decided my threshold for blocking someone is higher than this. I just won't discuss politics with you in the future.
You don't understand MAD. MAD is what keeps nuclear war from happening. The USA consistently has a position that they must work to establish the capabilities to WIN a nuclear war, and one of the key tenets of that is undermining MAD.
The way to undermine MAD is two-fold:
So while you are correct that people won't really survive a nuclear war, it's the USA that believes they can win and they have been hard at work for decades to create the conditions for them to do so. They believe that even if a couple nukes make it through to the US, that would probably still be a victory for them. They believe they can wipe entire countries off the face of the earth in exchange for losing a city or two. That's the USA.
The USA constantly reminds everyone that they reserve the right to strike first with nukes. It's part of their military doctrine. So every other nation has a responsibility to their own people and in fact to their neighboring countries to prevent the US from furthering it's development of both forward missile deployments and forward missile defense systems. Both of those things make it more and more likely that the USA will launch a nuclear first-strike under their stated doctrine because they will have achieved or believed they have achieved an asymetry that undermines MAD. Every nuclear nation, and every nation that is under the aegis of one of those nations, is responsible for ensuring MAD remains the game state.
No. I understood your point. You're wrong. You think "nukes next door" is an argument about distance keeping a population safe. In the casus belli for the Russian SMO, that's not the point. In essence, you are making a strawman. The reasoning is NOT that the nukes are too close. The reasoning is that nuclear capabilities are too close, and those capabilities include missile defense, delivery time, and delivery volume. That is to say, the problem is the undermining of MAD, which the US has as its military doctrine and has had for a few decades. No one else in the world wants to undermine MAD except the USA.
Proximity is one of the KEY components of the USA strategy for undermining MAD.
I explained it already, I'll explain it again. You can read about this stuff, you know. You can also just ask yourself why the US would spend the money and the time to deploy nuclear capabilities encircling Russia and China when they could save the money and just do it from Kansas and Texas with same effect.
To overwhelm missile defenses, you need a large number of missiles flying at each target and you need a large number of targets. This means that the more nukes you have, the better. However, it also means that the more locations your nukes are in the better, because it means your opponent must target ALL of your locations, not just a few. By having nukes in more locations than Russia and China does, the USA begins to undermine MAD because it creates an asymetry. But this doesn't cover why closeness matters, only why distribution matters.
To reduce reaction time, you need shorter flight times and longer periods of ambiguity. The less time your opponent has to react, the less effective their response will be. When the US deploys forward nukes, it creates asymetry again. Yes, everyone can load a nuke on a submarine and deploy the submarine, but their capacity is limited. Land-based nukes allow for much higher volume - at least one order of magnitude higher. The asymetry emerges such that when the US chooses to strike first it will give its opponents only about 5 minutes to react before the first missile hits, whereas should Russia choose to strike first the US would have nearly half an hour to react. This reaction time is critical to successful enactment of the MAD doctrine.
There are other points, but let me pause here to combine these two. With high volume, high distribution, and low response time, the USA already undermines MAD substantially. It creates the conditions for a nuclear first-strike where the US is guaranteed to destroy a substantial portion of the retaliatory capabilities of its opponents, which means that mutual destruction becomes less assured. When mutual destruction becomes less assured, you get US military strategists considering how else they can push the envelope to undermine MAD and "win a nuclear war".
Also remember that a retaliatory launch of nukes under the MAD doctrine is not as simple as just saying it. First, the targets of the first-strike have to detect that a nuke is inbound. This is a matter of analysis. It's not like nukes have radar signatures or transponders that identify their payload. Time is critical to determine whether or not nukes are heading your way so you can enact MAD.
Because of this particular problem, most nuclear countries have automatic launch capabilities that trigger when they detect nuclear explosions. This system is a fail safe to ensure MAD. It doesn't work if the first-strike is dense enough and fast enough to take out all nuclear facilities in the first round.
This is the first major step in undermining MAD - high volume, fast delivery speed, globally distributed = able to overwhelm defenses and disable retaliation in a first-strike.
The second major step in undermining MAD is missile defense. This is, again, why proximity matters.
Missile detection facilities. By placing nuclear missile detection capabilities in a circle around targeted nations, the USA is able to detect and track missiles at the earliest possible time, far earlier than their opponents can.
Missile defense capabilities. By surrounding their targets with missile defense batteries, the USA is able to track AND destroy missiles on their path to their US targets. After a nuclear first-strike by the US, one that has destroyed a significant portion of the nuclear launch capabilities of their targets, whatever remains to enforce the doctrine of MAD will be smaller in volume, easily tracked, and the US will have nearly 30 minutes to shoot every single one of them down.
And that is how proximity undermines MAD.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
You're just not willing to accept that I may even possibly have valid points and are now laughing and accusing me of dishonesty. That's enough. Like I said in my last post, I no longer wish to discuss this with you.
Thanks for clarifying. I think there may be a misunderstanding about my argument. I'm not saying that distance necessarily makes us safer from my own perspective. I could agree with you that mutually assured destruction is probably the end result regardless of distance. The point I'm making is that for military and national security experts, distance (and consequently time before being hit) is assuredly considered a factor, despite what you or I may think. This article may provide some useful background on these concepts. There may be better articles out there but I happened to run across this one when I searched for when ICBMs became viable.
I've mentioned this before, but the US nearly completely lost it when they found out that there were Russian nukes in Cuba in 1962. The same exact scenario would be just as alarming to the US today. Trying to wave away Russia's concerns with this type of scenario is unrealistic. Have you ever watched Dr. Mearsheimer speak? If you haven't, it's worth looking on Youtube for his name and Russia or Ukraine. He is a renowned scholar in international relations who has a realistic perspective of West-Russia relations and who speaks very clearly about it.