Would the principle of MAD hold true in a conventional war between two nuclear powers? Even though they're at war...

Are you kidding me? Look at what happened to Japan when it wasn't even a threat to the US anymore. Look at Assad - who has killed or displaced more than half of his own population just to stay in power. Nevermind all the other conflicts and civil wars that have similarly killed tens of millions and radically altered or even destroyed entire nations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

like that

You think annexing Crimea is the end goal for Putin? What do you think is next? Tensions could rise, and a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia won't be so far fetched

If Japan could have retaliated with nuclear weapons, do you think the US would still dropped the bombs?

If Japan was firebombing the US like the US was firebombing them, hell yes yeah.

>Just like in WW2 no sides used chemical weapons because of the devestating effects it could have...
I'm pretty sure that was more due to most chemical weapons not being terribly effective in a modern war of movement

If Japan had the capability to firebomb DC like the US could firebomb Tokyo, I bet the they would have been a lot more hesitant in firebombing Tokyo. If you add nuclear weapons into the equation, neither would try it.

Not effective in a war of movement, but in causing civillian casualties it could have been unprecedented in its deathtoll. Yet the germans didn't strike London with chemical weapons because they knew the allies would blanket them with Anthrax or something else as deadly, which is quite telling because Hitler wanted to kill as many Anglo citizens as possible for revenge

Yes, as without Crimea Russia has no warm water ports for nearly half the year. Their only extra-territorial naval port being in Syria, which is kinda under threat as well. Putin was merely making sure Russia still had a relevant naval fleet and trade passage.

Annexing Georgia will probably be next, although he kinda has already done that de facto, so I suppose there's no need to make it official. If any of the other bordering states look into joining NATO he'll probably destabilize them as well, but none of the others, nor the remainder of the Ukraine, are actually of major strategic import.

Yes, but that's the point. You don't start existential wars against nations with nuclear capability, as eventually, the button is the only option.

NK is likely to be a real test of that, only because their nuclear capability is so limited.

Also might be worth noting that the only reason Russia bullied Ukraine so bad is the the Ukraine sold their nuclear weapons to Russia, essentially disarming themselves.

These days, nuclear weapons are pretty much the only way to guarantee your continued sovereignty. It's gonna get ugly when push comes to shove and that's no longer the case.

Yea but why is the button a better option than surrender if you know you're losing and you know you're just going to give your country a permanent nuclear winter....

dont forget the rampant corruption in ukraine that basically crippled it from getting anything done a la the late western roman empire

Well, for starters, nuclear winter is overrated (and global). More importantly, in an existential war, surrender usually means death for those that lose. You might be willing to take rather crappy terms to prevent the war, but if the other side is out for regime change, that button looks a lot more tempting.

In the case of the Cold War, both sides had built huge fictional hate totems and vilified each other so much and for so long that each no longer viewed the other as human. Each felt that if either side had taken out the other that the remainder of the world was doomed to a horrific dystopian future, and as generations progressed, this lie not only spread to the populous at large, but became the mainstay believe at the top, as eventually even those folks were taught to think that way from a young age (that's the problem with propaganda, eventually everyone believes it). Thus, they each not only had elaborate plans to wipe out the enemy, but to do so even under the circumstance that their nation had already been defeated and destroyed, in order to "save what's left of world from their evil".

The only reason the Germans didn't use gas in ww2 against combatants was that the British and Americans had substantial supplies stored away and could easily carpet bomb the shit out of Germany with it.

we don't know because that principle has never truly been tested

and its never been tested because we don't know

The person who drew this is a complete moron

>each not only had elaborate plans to wipe out the enemy, but to do so even under the circumstance that their nation had already been defeated and destroyed
This, it's sickening how many hundreds of billions went into infrastructure and plans for retaliation for AFTER every major city had already been reduced to ashes in a nuclear holocaust. The whole stealth bomber program, among others, was designed to be launched after the thousands of ICBM's were already flying. Seriously, what's the point?

On the plus side, such insanity is part of the reason the internet exists, I suppose.

for MAD to truly work your state's conventional military power should be obsolete, like North Korea. If your only real martial option is nuclear, whether defensive or offensive, the threat is much more credible. it's kind of like insurance, smart people opt for plans with high deductibles.

North Korea doesn't have enough nuclear stockpile for MAD. It's more of a "kill us and we'll sting you - and it'll hurt like a bitch, we swear" threat. Their main threat is the same as it's been for decades though - the fact that they have more poundage of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul than used in all of World War II, all on a hair trigger.

During the Clinton years, before Korea had nuclear capability, they ran a few hundred war games scenarios, and couldn't come up with one that didn't end up with at least 3 million dead South Koreans by the end of it. (This leaked, and became prime propaganda for Best Korea.)

Even for large nuclear capable states, such as the USSR, you still need conventional military to secure your interests abroad, and deal with all those inevitable proxy wars. You can't just drop nukes every time you need to call out the jackals to get someone to play ball.

That's precisely the point everyone was trying to make: we don't use it, you don't use it, no one gets gassed, everyone's happy.

agreed, its quite telling that Russia has not attempted to do anything like they did to Ukraine to the Baltic states, which is to say use the significant russian minorities in those states to start an ethnic civil war where russia then has to go in and "defend" its brethren. After the Crimean crisis I was sure Russia's next step was to annex Belarus and carve off a chunk of Lithuania so Kaliningrad would be connected to the rest of the country, but none of that happened.

Did you know that Russia actually has a smaller GDP than Italy?

His point that the Germans didn't have nearly the stockpile of chemical weapons and deployment capability that the Allies did. If the Nazis had used chemical weapons on a war footing, the allies would have done the same, to much greater effect, and the whole war would have been a lot shorter.

>At a May 1943 meeting in the Wolf's Lair, however, Hitler was told by Ambros that Germany had 45,000 tons of chemical gas stockpiled, but that the Allies likely had far more. Hitler responded by suddenly leaving the room and ordering production of tabun and sarin to be doubled, but "fearing some rogue officer would use them and spark Allied retaliation, he ordered that no chemical weapons be transported to the Russian front."

Not that we didn't come close...

> The British planned to use mustard gas and phosgene to help repel a German invasion in 1940-1941, and had there been an invasion may have also deployed it against German cities. General Alan Brooke, Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in command of British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War said that he "...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on the beaches" in an annotation in his diary. The British manufactured mustard, chlorine, lewisite, phosgene and Paris Green and stored them at airfields and depots for use on the beaches.

If the two sides had been on more equal footing in that department, or if the allies so armed had been pushed a little closer to the brink, they may have been less apt to follow the rules in that department.

In the case of the Cold War nukes, both sides were comparably nuclear armed - at least more than well enough to wipe out each other several times over, and further, no such rules were established.

>the only reason Russia bullied Ukraine so bad is the the Ukraine sold their nuclear weapons to Russia, essentially disarming themselves
Complete bullshit.

All constituents of Soviet Union who had nukes stationed promptly shipped them to Russia.

Ukraine is only being "bullied" as a reaction to attempts to leave Russia's sphere of influence, especially with Ukraine's important geographical position as a buffer zone between Russia and EU.

Ukraine being a landbridge to EU has a lot of gas/oil pipes coming through and it's even more important to keep that stuff secure.

>After the Crimean crisis I was sure Russia's next step was to annex Belarus and carve off a chunk of Lithuania so Kaliningrad would be connected to the rest of the country, but none of that happened.
What goal would that achieve that they can not do now? And what would be the casus belli?

You are applying wargame militaristic videogame thinking into real world and then gets surprised that it doesn't match.

I'm actually referring to the tank
It is in the shape of a T-80U instead of any tank in NATO service

being able to ship materiel to Kaliningrad without leaving the country for one, and what would they gain from annexing Belarus? Fucking belarus.

>and what would be the casus belli
the same bullshit they used in Ukraine "the russian minority is under threat from an oppressive non ethnic russian government"

You say I'm applying video game thinking, but actually i was looking at it for its similarities to german diplomacy in inter-war europe. I felt that realistically since Crimea was so overwhelmingly ethnically Russian it did make sense for it to be a part of Russia and they were merely taking something they lost in 1991 but was rightfully theirs. When they then attempted to take Eastern Ukraine too I became deeply concerned we were seeing something similar to what Germany did in the 1930s with bullying their way into territorial gains. But I guess when it turned out they couldn't win a proxy war on their own fucking border they decided not to press their luck.

>Japan when it wasn't even a threat to the US anymor
>Japan wasn't a threat to the US

Yes lets just fight a protracted land war that will kill thousands of your soldiers while never displaying the power of our unique superweapon.

Idiot.

Not saying it wasn't a necessity, though not for the reasons you're suggesting - they already offered surrender at better terms for us than we eventually forced upon them - but they weren't an existential threat. We coulda walked away after firebombing Tokyo, and, without our help and international aid, it would have taken them decades to recover (albeit, the Russians woulda came in, which probably wouldn't have gone well for them.)

The point is, we dropped two nukes on the nation just to prove a point. Not, at that point, to defeat an existential threat. So you can imagine what we would do to a nation that was actually capable of destroying us.

>Also might be worth noting that the only reason Russia bullied Ukraine so bad is the the Ukraine sold their nuclear weapons to Russia, essentially disarming themselves.

Russia is only taking back what its sees as its own rightful clay, protecting it from attempts by NATO/EU to infringe on that. And very important rightful clay at that, with the Sebastopol naval base.

>Seriously, what's the point?

The point is letting your enemy know that you will fuck him up even if he manages to beat you first, thereby assuring that he wont dare to try.

You seriously never heard of MAD?

Do you actually believe the shit you type?

>for MAD to truly work your state's conventional military power should be obsolete, like North Korea

This assumption is wrong though. Not only can they assure Seoul's complete destruction, they also have so much manpower combined with thousands of miles of tunnels that they can fight a defensive war for quite a while.

>The point is letting your enemy know that you will fuck him up even if he manages to beat you first
That wasn't the scenario. That wasn't even a possible scenario with all the early warning systems in place. First strike stopped being a possibility well before those programs were in place.

The point was, everyone is already dead, now we're going to make everyone deader. I mean, yeah, you're showing some tenacity there, but there was a line way back there somewhere where this all became pointless.

>what would they gain from annexing Belarus? Fucking belarus.
non answer

What would Namibia gain from annexing Brasil? Fucking Brasil.

This is not the answer nor even the question.

The question what will they GAIN if they CAN do it in realistic manner.

> being able to ship materiel to Kaliningrad without leaving the country for one
More videogame logic.

What for? How viable is attacking more countries you are in military alliance with against NATO so that lil' Vanya there can buy russian food instead of EU food?

>gain from annexing Belarus? Fucking belarus.
there was a reason why Stalin wanted eastern poland in 1939,
although really it doesn't mean much either way since Belarus is already heavily economically tied to Russia, not to mention that they're already allies
even if the Kremlin wanted to do it its a low priority since it can be done later
moreover Russia dosen't want to give the neocons in Washington justification to get NATO involved further in eastern europe,
so russia is just gonna avoid direct conflict for the most part

Because most of Soeul is within regular artillery range from the border, not because of any 60 year out if date nuclear and missile technology they may have.

That's why there was no aerial attacks on cities in Europe, right? Because both sides were able to do it to each other?

>Just like in WW2 no sides used chemical weapons because of the devestating effects it could have.

Japan used Chemical Weapons against the Chinese in the 2nd Sino-Jap War and WWII.

They only stopped because they were noobs in the use of Chemical weapons (i.e. used Gas Canisters and wind forecasts instead of gas bombs or gas shells), and ended up gassing loads of their own troops as well.

Ya know, I'm quite happy to pay extra taxes to make sure neither Germany or Japan has a real army again, and I really get irked when certain politicians start encouraging them to militarize again because they aren't "doing their fair share".

Those two nations should be forever relegated to making beer and anime.

Germany is content with desotrying itself and given politics in Japan right now they wan't to be something more than a US military base

>The evil Assad meme

>The Arab Spring was 100% done by the ebil foreigners. The locals had no agency. They loved their asshole leaders 100%.

>who has killed or displaced more than half of his own population just to stay in power
>implying the CIA didn't arm the rebels and start the civil war in the first place
watching CNN again?

>No foreign leader, no matter how seemingly crazy or cornered it is, would cause the deaths of tens of millions just because they’re pissy that they’re losing.

Didn't say it was his fault it started - but he coulda ended it at any time by simply putting up a good puppet - instead, he chose to destroy his nation to stay in power, just on his own terms, instead of theirs.

>if a leader don't have 100% approval it's an ebil leader

What did Germany gain from annexing Austria?

Yes that was my point, nato is an effective deterrent to Russian expansion in eastern Europe.

Shooting peaceful demonstrators is pretty evil I'd say.

Assuming its a limited war, like a fight over a small piece of territory rather than a fight for their existence.

Holocaust happened because Germany was losing?

Seriously almost 100 years and you still need to paint a bad man as the devil when there were worse trough history and even during is time than himself, then you get suprised people dont trust you anymore and even get to the point of holocaust denial

This shit is being dissecated in international relations, the ideia of those in a more realist line is precisly your post

Not him but..
Giving guns to islamic fundamentalists is both evil and stupid dare i say
Btw >implying there were no islamic fundamentalists in the middle of the crowd causing unrest

They did divert more and more resources to it later in the war.

>Shoot all the peaceful demonstrators
>Only Islamic extremists are left
ITS EITHER ME OR THEM, WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT?

No one will use nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons don't exist. I saw proof on politically incorrect.

Obligatory curfew, if muslims l terrorists infiltrate civilians and refugees they should be separated untill sorted out.

Did not know, but you alredy had the ghetto, deportation and camps (not in this order) even before invading the USSR tough

>Assad should have just given up and let the jihadis we armed take over and kill the Alawites and Christians in Syria so it could become another Libya or Iraq

Its not really deterrent as much as it is Washington extending its hegemony even further

This. And this is one of the reasons why both Rússia and China are against overthrowing north korea, despite China having said onde north koreans ressemble a children making a tantrum

You mean he should have let himself end up like Gaddafi or Saddam? I'm no fan of the guy but surely you can't be surprised he didn't choose that fate?

>Its not really deterrent as much as it is Washington extending its hegemony even further
Ask yourself why the Baltic states broke away from the ussr and why they joined nato. It was not to extend American hegemony.

>not to extend American hegemony
that may be what the Baltic states think,
but i can assure you some American neocon dosen't

You've got to think of it from the side of the loser. Your entire way of life, and possibly your actual life and those of your family and friends is about to be annihilated. You have a choice to go quietly or lash out at the faceless mass of people vaguely associated with your attacker, to make them feel some of the pain you have.

You're not concerned with the survival of the human race, your concerned with the survival of your tribe, and if its certain your tribe will fall, then you have nothing to hold you back.

Well, to OP's point - imagine what he'd done if he had nukes.

Granted, a smart dictator would have rigged up a puppet, rather than ending up like Mr. Misunderstanding, and Mr. I'mGonnaSellOil4Denars, but that'd mean giving up the dynasty. In the end, it's about ego, and not about his people.

Because the artist used the first GIS result for "tank"

>Mr. I'mGonnaSellOil4Denars, but that'd mean giving up the dynasty. In the end, it's about ego
>freeing your country from petrodollar faggotry was about ego

The ability to pay off a massive internal debt though plunder

>I disagree. No foreign leader, no matter how seemingly crazy or cornered it is, would cause the deaths of tens of millions just because they’re pissy that they’re losing
If that was true, no wars would ever happen.

That was in reference to Gaddafi... He knew that was suicide, but much like Assad's father, who more or less founded modern Islamic terrorism, he had hoped to spur a new era of pan-Arab nationalism, I suppose.

youtube.com/watch?v=VZZvPlGCt_8

And here Assad is laughing at him. It'd be a prophetic speech, if it wasn't also so obvious.

Granted, Gaddafi had gotten away with so much ostentatious stuff over the years, even coping to crimes levied against him that he had nothing to do with - playing the part of the villain as it were, in hopes of one day being the hero. Meanwhile, Assad had an easy out that would have spared his people. He didn't take it, nor did he make any moves to free his people from the non-Arab world - he just sold himself to the one other nation with an interest in keeping him in power. All evidence suggests Gaddafi genuinely cared for his people and their future - even Assad's father, misguided as it was, had a vision. His son, on the other hand, sadly, has never shown a care for anything other than his throne.

Tokyo was firebombed when they couldn't retaliate. Nazis bombed when their enemies couldn't retaliate. Dresden was bombed when the Nazis couldn't retaliate.

Yea, but here's the thing. China couldn't retaliate, but Britain could, so you understand why Japan did what the Nazis didn't?

is there sources for any of this shit

WW1 got paid just a few decades ago, long after anchluss

>Assad's father, who more or less founded modern Islamic terrorism
>not the Saudis or any other of our allies in the region
>not the CIA

I'm not sure what you envision when you talk about "rigging up a puppet" but I feel you've played too many videogames

While the CIA may be responsible for the current civil war, they had nothing to do with Hafez al-Assad's spurring of the fundamentalists to organize and to commit terrorist attacks in Reagan's time. It was in many ways an extremely successful tactic, and achieved the short term ends Hafez intended, if not the long, much to the USA's dismay - it just came back to bite him in the ass down the road, as extremists tend to do when you fund them.

No. MAD has been outdated for decades. It simply doesn't make much sense which is why very few Cold War strategies included it after the 50's. NUTS is the proper nuclear strategy and has been for a long time which is why areas like the Fulda Gap were going to see nukes deployed as denial of area rather than full exchange.

>While the CIA may be responsible for the current civil war, they had nothing to do with Hafez al-Assad's spurring of the fundamentalists to organize and to commit terrorist attacks in Reagan's time.

lol wut

youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

>tfw uncle adi's rep forever tainted by 44-45 hitler

>NK is likely to be a real test of that,

t. NK national TV

>Nazis bombed when their enemies couldn't retaliate
Counter-point: Britain bombed Germany when Germany could and DID retaliate.

>Hafez al-Assad
>Afghanistan
I think you're a few nations off, user.

Though yes, that was certainly the west taking advantage of a trend he started elsewhere, which turned on him as well.

Salami Tactics

youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac

>Holocaust happened because Germany was losing?
The Nero decree happened because Germany was losing. It would've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions by starvation.

>ctrl+f NUTS
>Only one result
How disappointing. Anyway, chemical weapons are actually pretty shit and were outdated by WWII. Too much risk of missing your target or hitting your own troops. Japan's experience in China attests to this. Chemical weapons are for third world dictators.