WW3 Chatter

[mordant]

A few months ago, the German military was reportedly expecting a general land war in Europe within a couple of years. In recent weeks, the UK military has reached a similar assessment.

Today I got an investment newsletter of uncertain provenance with the following blurb:

Billionaire Ray Dalio said recently that we're close to "a brutal World War III."

The CEO of J.P. Morgan, Jamie Dimon, agrees.

He said, "The attacks on Israel may have far-reaching impacts. This may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades."

And now, the Strategic Posture Commission - which is a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel - just released a report which said:

"The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China."

The report calls for an immediate expansion of conventional forces, as well as enhancing our nuclear weapons program.

I have not done a deep dive on these rumblings and IMO one must consider the source. A general is always going to want more weapons and to be prepared for any eventuality. So it is possible all three of these assessments are overblown. Arguing against war is the general belief that Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a sorry enough state that they would not be able to adequately respond to an attack from us or to get an overwhelming volley of at us to begin with; on the non-nuclear side, Ukraine has done a pretty good job of sucking them dry for us.

OTOH Russia has been terrible at dealing in reality ever since they invaded Ukraine (at least). Arguing FOR war is that China and Russia (and NKR) are all good at smelling blood in the water -- they sense weakness; we are not what we used to be, not as much militarily probably as in terms of character and resolve; we are at each other's throats domestically. Opportunistically, if they want to get one over on us, maybe they would figure it's now or never.

The most certain thing is that this will be an excuse to expand the military even further, build more ships, planes and missiles, when the $ and resources are badly needed at home. After that who knows ... I've seen people gaming out how Putin could sow election chaos and then pull us into a 2-front war with China's help, maybe even with a side order of missiles coming from North Korea either on us or our allies, or maybe a simultaneous invasion of Taiwan ... overwhelm us and see what advantage they can gain.

I wonder what thoughts anyone here has on the topic. Particularly Thump.

[Dānu]

Cui bono.

[Minimalist]

Rich fucks always want wars that poor people are expected to fight.

[mordant]

Cui bono.

Too many candidates to list.

The military industrial complex. ($$$, infinite expansion)

Putin (hold onto power by convincing the populace we are out to get them and Must Be Stopped; grab more resources in a world increasingly short of them, which was a big reason why he started the whole Ukraine thing anyway)

China ... further establish / cement their dominance in the world.

North Korea ... get revenge on South Korea while the rest of the world is too busy to intervene.

Even us ... the rich fucks here would love the distraction so they could continue to profit off everything they are already involved in PLUS the war and all the cleanup and whatnot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A few months ago, the German military was reportedly expecting a general land war in Europe within a couple of years. In recent weeks, the UK military has reached a similar assessment.

Today I got an investment newsletter of uncertain provenance with the following blurb:

Billionaire Ray Dalio said recently that we're close to "a brutal World War III."

The CEO of J.P. Morgan, Jamie Dimon, agrees.

He said, "The attacks on Israel may have far-reaching impacts. This may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades."

And now, the Strategic Posture Commission - which is a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel - just released a report which said:

"The United States must prepare for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China."

The report calls for an immediate expansion of conventional forces, as well as enhancing our nuclear weapons program.

I have not done a deep dive on these rumblings and IMO one must consider the source. A general is always going to want more weapons and to be prepared for any eventuality. So it is possible all three of these assessments are overblown. Arguing against war is the general belief that Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a sorry enough state that they would not be able to adequately respond to an attack from us or to get an overwhelming volley of at us to begin with; on the non-nuclear side, Ukraine has done a pretty good job of sucking them dry for us.

OTOH Russia has been terrible at dealing in reality ever since they invaded Ukraine (at least). Arguing FOR war is that China and Russia (and NKR) are all good at smelling blood in the water -- they sense weakness; we are not what we used to be, not as much militarily probably as in terms of character and resolve; we are at each other's throats domestically. Opportunistically, if they want to get one over on us, maybe they would figure it's now or never.

The most certain thing is that this will be an excuse to expand the military even further, build more ships, planes and missiles, when the $ and resources are badly needed at home. After that who knows ... I've seen people gaming out how Putin could sow election chaos and then pull us into a 2-front war with China's help, maybe even with a side order of missiles coming from North Korea either on us or our allies, or maybe a simultaneous invasion of Taiwan ... overwhelm us and see what advantage they can gain.

I wonder what thoughts anyone here has on the topic. Particularly Thump.

I don't think the risk is that much higher. All three of our adversarial leaders -- and make no mistake, they are adversaries -- have grown accustomed to breathing. They don't want to rule over an irradiated wasteland. After all, they need masses to exploit so they can maintain their fabulous lifestyles.

Having said that, the risk is higher. China is making a serious drive into the South China Sea, with the aim, I am betting, of eventually seizing control of the Straits of Macassar and Singapore. Russia being in an active shooting war mitigates against their pushing the button, though. Their money ($300 million/day) and attention are fixated on Ukraine. The only threat they pose is nuclear, and it's literally the one weapon you cannot use if you value national survival.

All three adversaries are adept at hybrid warfare. Their best option is to continue doing that, and in the words of Adams, watch democracy commit suicide.

As for the strength of our conventional forces, the last report is correct. They are undermanned and equipped with weapons reaching the end of lifespan. Replacements are horribly expensive if you want to maintain the technical advantage. You can afford larger numbers if you scale back the technology a bit. But options are bad when contemplating war with just China.

[mordant]

A few months ago, the German military was reportedly expecting a general land war in Europe within a couple of years. In recent weeks, the UK military has reached a similar assessment.

Today I got an investment newsletter of uncertain provenance with the following blurb:

I have not done a deep dive on these rumblings and IMO one must consider the source. A general is always going to want more weapons and to be prepared for any eventuality. So it is possible all three of these assessments are overblown. Arguing against war is the general belief that Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a sorry enough state that they would not be able to adequately respond to an attack from us or to get an overwhelming volley of at us to begin with; on the non-nuclear side, Ukraine has done a pretty good job of sucking them dry for us.

OTOH Russia has been terrible at dealing in reality ever since they invaded Ukraine (at least). Arguing FOR war is that China and Russia (and NKR) are all good at smelling blood in the water -- they sense weakness; we are not what we used to be, not as much militarily probably as in terms of character and resolve; we are at each other's throats domestically. Opportunistically, if they want to get one over on us, maybe they would figure it's now or never.

The most certain thing is that this will be an excuse to expand the military even further, build more ships, planes and missiles, when the $ and resources are badly needed at home. After that who knows ... I've seen people gaming out how Putin could sow election chaos and then pull us into a 2-front war with China's help, maybe even with a side order of missiles coming from North Korea either on us or our allies, or maybe a simultaneous invasion of Taiwan ... overwhelm us and see what advantage they can gain.

I wonder what thoughts anyone here has on the topic. Particularly Thump.

I don't think the risk is that much higher. All three of our adversarial leaders -- and make no mistake, they are adversaries -- have grown accustomed to breathing. They don't want to rule over an irradiated wasteland. After all, they need masses to exploit so they can maintain their fabulous lifestyles.

Having said that, the risk is higher. China is making a serious drive into the South China Sea, with the aim, I am betting, of eventually seizing control of the Straits of Macassar and Singapore. Russia being in an active shooting war mitigates against their pushing the button, though. Their money ($300 million/day) and attention are fixated on Ukraine. The only threat they pose is nuclear, and it's literally the one weapon you cannot use if you value national survival.

All three adversaries are adept at hybrid warfare. Their best option is to continue doing that, and in the words of Adams, watch democracy commit suicide.

I think we could see a broader land war with the constant threat of nuclear armageddon, even though, like you, I'm doubtful the latter can be taken as anything but bluster. Open up a front in Lithuania or something. Simultaneously, China attacks Taiwan and/or NK attacks SK. Might even be a nice "October Surprise". Or, something for Harris (or dog help us, Trump) to deal with on Day One, whatever they think is more advantageous.

Or they bide their time for a year or two, giving Putin a chance with Chinese and NK help to rebuild his arsenals and reconstitute the army a bit. That's more the timeline that Germany and the UK are concerned about.

[Dānu]

Cui bono.

Too many candidates to list.

The military industrial complex. ($$$, infinite expansion)

Putin (hold onto power by convincing the populace we are out to get them and Must Be Stopped; grab more resources in a world increasingly short of them, which was a big reason why he started the whole Ukraine thing anyway)

China ... further establish / cement their dominance in the world.

North Korea ... get revenge on South Korea while the rest of the world is too busy to intervene.

Even us ... the rich fucks here would love the distraction so they could continue to profit off everything they are already involved in PLUS the war and all the cleanup and whatnot.

I think you'll find few of those balance sheets agreeing with your assessment.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think we could see a broader land war with the constant threat of nuclear armageddon, even though, like you, I'm doubtful the latter can be taken as anything but bluster. Open up a front in Lithuania or something. Simultaneously, China attacks Taiwan and/or NK attacks SK. Might even be a nice "October Surprise". Or, something for Harris (or dog help us, Trump) to deal with on Day One, whatever they think is more advantageous.

Or they bide their time for a year or two, giving Putin a chance with Chinese and NK help to rebuild his arsenals and reconstitute the army a bit. That's more the timeline that Germany and the UK are concerned about.

I doubt Russia will attack any of the Baltics, or Poland; that's NATO Article Five stuff and even if it doesn't go nuclear, it means Putin's misadventure in Ukraine will get shut down mos' rickey-tick, because NATO will most certainly pile in there to kill Russians with airpower. The Russians are already fully stretched logistically in Ukraine. NATO jets hitting Russian depots and rail nets will kill both fronts.

China's aims towards Taiwan worry me much more. I doubt they will succeed, because an amphibious assault across a 90-mile strait is tough, but I think China may be feeling its oats enough that it might think it doable. And it's a stated aim of theirs to do so by 2027 or so. Still, landing an occupation force will be bloody, and we will likely be dragged in, as well as Japan.

The world is lining up into camps, much like the 30s. It's very unsettling. If we don't have strong conventional forces, we in the Western democracies may be forced to choose between accepting faits-accompli or going first-launch ourselves. It's similar to Hitler's gambits in 1938 in both Austria and Czechoslovakia.

A major reason why Trump is so dangerous is that with his dilletante foreign policy, he can be played into such a corner by the autocrats who work to undermine us.

[Szuchow]

I think that such claims are made for internal consumption and end accidentally (or not) picked by international news. If I remember correctly one of Poland generals also made claims about either WWIII or at least russia aggression against Poland. As far as I am concerned it's designed to spread fear and make people rally around the flag though one has to note that war does not have to be probable to happen, it's just take one person stupidity to start.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that such claims are made for internal consumption [...]

I'm sure that here in America such alarms are made not to gird the public, but to worry the public into not supporting Ukraine in its struggle. I'm also sure that in Poland -- with it being so much closer to danger -- that these claims have different political usages.

[Silly Deity]

In late September Putin announced a new nuclear doctrine for the threshold for when the Russians would actually launch nuclear weapons, but the Russians are having a problem because they have established all kinds of red lines - dozens of them - over the last two and a half years. Then whenever someone has crossed them -  whether it's Ukraine in the war or weapon supplies by the United States or Germany or Britain or Turkey, the Russians have ignored their own red line and so they're having a credibility problem with their deterrence policy

Putin's announcement was about trying to reestablish that and he said that now any non-nuclear country who has an ally that is a nuclear country - should the non-nuclear country use a non-nuclear weapon against Russia, then that is justification for a Russian nuclear strike on the nuclear country that is the ally.

A really stupid thing to say because this has already happened numerous times as Ukraine has used weapons supplied by its Western allies against Russia

So the Russians have had a real problem establishing or reestablishing a deterrent because they keep saying stupid things like this which are nonsensical and immediately the world goes on as before and it's shown to be a bluff.

Now the issue is that the Russian conventional military is clearly not all that it was cracked up to be and, if we'd believed the pre-war propaganda put out by the Russians, Ukraine should have been annihilated a long time ago but it's still there and punching well above its weight and that's before you factor in that most of the Western Alliance is providing the Ukrainians with ammo and weapons.

So how do you reestablish deterrence? Well the first and the easiest, most direct, reliable way is to have a conversation to basically call up NATO, establish a summit and talk about strategic issues of which nuclear is one. The Russians have firmly refused that option because if they do that they have to talk about Ukraine and they have to talk about war crimes, mass kidnappings, the weaponization of sexual violence. They have to talk about encouraging migrants to go to Europe by breaking countries in Africa and in the Middle East. They have to talk about all the things that they've been doing over the last two or three years that they see as giving them a little bit of leverage. So of course the Europeans and the United States have acted and so the Ukraine war is continuing and Ukraine still exists.

For the Russians to establish deterrence by negotiation they have to put everything else on the table and they are not willing to do that. So we've had no meaningful Summits in the last three years with anyone.

The second thing you can do you is a demonstration nuclear test. The problem is that the Russian nuclear force has degraded just as much as the Russian conventional force and it was less than a week ago that the Russians tried to test out one of the new InterContinental ballistic missiles and it blew up in its silo!  Now this this is really bad not just from an embarrassment point of view or a deterrence point of view but most of the avionics for Russia's ICBM arsenal were built in Ukraine and this new missile that the Russians were testing was their effort to build a domestic supply chain.  It is now apparent that at least at the moment that is not possible and it begs the question of just how reliable is the rest of the Russian nuclear arsenal if Putin pressed the button? Will anything happen? If a country isn't confident that the damn things will launch deterrence can't happen. 

The third thing you can do is nuke someone. The problem here is while the Russians have bled away and pissed away their deterrence the United States, France and the UK (all nuclear powers) continue to test and fine-tune and deploy weapons and have made very clear to the Russians in the early weeks of the Ukraine war that if Russia were to throw a nuke into Ukraine or anywhere else the first thing NATO would do is use its conventional forces to destroy every Russian military and civilian asset around the world.  And if a nuclear weapon were to hit a NATO ally (not just Ukraine) the first few weapons that would be sent back would target Putin personally.

So that's not an option either. So what's left?

Pointless press releases and Trump style bluster and that is what passes for strategic policy in the Kremlin these days.

Now whether or not that is sustainable over the long run is really not the point. The question ultimately is how will the Ukraine war play out? Remember Russia is still a large country and even on its knees it still has a huge amount of resources and manpower to throw at the situation. But it's not a bottomless barrel anymore. This is not 1920's or 30s or 40's or even 1980 but the Russians still outnumber the Ukrainians at least 3 to 1. They have an industrial plant that while atrophied is still an order of magnitude bigger than anything the Ukrainians have and they have the Chinese providing huge amounts of components, as well as artillery shells from North Korea and drones from Iran

Ultimately its a question of whether the Russians can put the numbers into play effectively and to that end the Putin government - just before that disastrous failed nuclear missile test  - announced that they were expanding the military to make it the second largest standing army in the world. If Russia is going to win in Ukraine, that is how. It's with numbers and by ignoring the casualties and just steam-rollering on. If that sounds inhumane this is how Russia has won most of its wars. If Russia is to win its war in Ukraine this is how it's going to go.

It's not going to be because of nukes

[Szuchow]

I think that such claims are made for internal consumption [...]

I'm sure that here in America such alarms are made not to gird the public, but to worry the public into not supporting Ukraine in its struggle. I'm also sure that in Poland -- with it being so much closer to danger -- that these claims have different political usages.

Quick google search told me that in Poland such claims are made randomly - same general said that danger of WWIII exists and not exists. It would fit perfectly with how chaotic politics is here.

[adey67]

Talk about WW3 has been ramping up on YouTube for a couple of years there's at least 2 or 3 different videos on the subject everytime I check my feed. Most of them are clickbaity as hell but still show in the feed even after I've down voted and requested fewer such videos. There's not much anyone can do about it even if the dire warnings turn out to be true so why worry, any wider European war is going to morph into a nuclear conflict then it's game over but there's no point in worrying about it I'm close enough to an international airport to be certain of becoming ash and dust particles in the upper atmosphere should shtf.

[SYZ]

The populace's fear of a nuclear war probably peaked during
the height of the Cold War. The October 1962 Cuban missile
crisis involved the most dangerous nuclear alerts and threats.

JFK blockaded Cuba and put US strategic forces on a DEFCON 2
alert—one step away from a general war footing.

Even here in Australian schools, we were drilled on crouching
under our desks if it started. Apparently varnished wood protects
you against nuclear flash burn or radiation.

[Rhythmcs]

In late September Putin announced a new nuclear doctrine for the threshold for when the Russians would actually launch nuclear weapons, but the Russians are having a problem because they have established all kinds of red lines - dozens of them - over the last two and a half years. Then whenever someone has crossed them -  whether it's Ukraine in the war or weapon supplies by the United States or Germany or Britain or Turkey, the Russians have ignored their own red line and so they're having a credibility problem with their deterrence policy

Putin's announcement was about trying to reestablish that and he said that now any non-nuclear country who has an ally that is a nuclear country - should the non-nuclear country use a non-nuclear weapon against Russia, then that is justification for a Russian nuclear strike on the nuclear country that is the ally.

A really stupid thing to say because this has already happened numerous times as Ukraine has used weapons supplied by its Western allies against Russia

So the Russians have had a real problem establishing or reestablishing a deterrent because they keep saying stupid things like this which are nonsensical and immediately the world goes on as before and it's shown to be a bluff.

Now the issue is that the Russian conventional military is clearly not all that it was cracked up to be and, if we'd believed the pre-war propaganda put out by the Russians, Ukraine should have been annihilated a long time ago but it's still there and punching well above its weight and that's before you factor in that most of the Western Alliance is providing the Ukrainians with ammo and weapons.

So how do you reestablish deterrence? Well the first and the easiest, most direct, reliable way is to have a conversation to basically call up NATO, establish a summit and talk about strategic issues of which nuclear is one. The Russians have firmly refused that option because if they do that they have to talk about Ukraine and they have to talk about war crimes, mass kidnappings, the weaponization of sexual violence. They have to talk about encouraging migrants to go to Europe by breaking countries in Africa and in the Middle East. They have to talk about all the things that they've been doing over the last two or three years that they see as giving them a little bit of leverage. So of course the Europeans and the United States have acted and so the Ukraine war is continuing and Ukraine still exists.

For the Russians to establish deterrence by negotiation they have to put everything else on the table and they are not willing to do that. So we've had no meaningful Summits in the last three years with anyone.

The second thing you can do you is a demonstration nuclear test. The problem is that the Russian nuclear force has degraded just as much as the Russian conventional force and it was less than a week ago that the Russians tried to test out one of the new InterContinental ballistic missiles and it blew up in its silo!  Now this this is really bad not just from an embarrassment point of view or a deterrence point of view but most of the avionics for Russia's ICBM arsenal were built in Ukraine and this new missile that the Russians were testing was their effort to build a domestic supply chain.  It is now apparent that at least at the moment that is not possible and it begs the question of just how reliable is the rest of the Russian nuclear arsenal if Putin pressed the button? Will anything happen? If a country isn't confident that the damn things will launch deterrence can't happen. 

The third thing you can do is nuke someone. The problem here is while the Russians have bled away and pissed away their deterrence the United States, France and the UK (all nuclear powers) continue to test and fine-tune and deploy weapons and have made very clear to the Russians in the early weeks of the Ukraine war that if Russia were to throw a nuke into Ukraine or anywhere else the first thing NATO would do is use its conventional forces to destroy every Russian military and civilian asset around the world.  And if a nuclear weapon were to hit a NATO ally (not just Ukraine) the first few weapons that would be sent back would target Putin personally.

So that's not an option either. So what's left?

Pointless press releases and Trump style bluster and that is what passes for strategic policy in the Kremlin these days.

Now whether or not that is sustainable over the long run is really not the point. The question ultimately is how will the Ukraine war play out? Remember Russia is still a large country and even on its knees it still has a huge amount of resources and manpower to throw at the situation. But it's not a bottomless barrel anymore. This is not 1920's or 30s or 40's or even 1980 but the Russians still outnumber the Ukrainians at least 3 to 1. They have an industrial plant that while atrophied is still an order of magnitude bigger than anything the Ukrainians have and they have the Chinese providing huge amounts of components, as well as artillery shells from North Korea and drones from Iran

Ultimately its a question of whether the Russians can put the numbers into play effectively and to that end the Putin government - just before that disastrous failed nuclear missile test  - announced that they were expanding the military to make it the second largest standing army in the world. If Russia is going to win in Ukraine, that is how. It's with numbers and by ignoring the casualties and just steam-rollering on. If that sounds inhumane this is how Russia has won most of its wars. If Russia is to win its war in Ukraine this is how it's going to go.

It's not going to be because of nukes

[SYZ]

LOL...  "Nucular" mentioned several times. What is it?    

[Rhythmcs]

Yale to yall effect. Bush the Younger did it too.