Open General Forums

War, eh ? Can't be off topic, can it ? In any case, this thread is most definitely a one off.

Thoughts - Part I

Collision Course

A) Who are "you" to dare resist obeying "us" and ultimately becoming like "us" ? No way "you" recalcitrant, civilizational bumpkins...

B) Who are "you" to dare force "us" obey "you" and, god forbid. become like "you" ? No way "you" hubristic expansionists...

Collectivities: Feelings of Superiority & Long Term Memories

A few building blocks...

Tribes that view themselves as the latest and greatest things since the invention of... sliced bread are in constant need of feeling as well as being repeatedly told they are on top of the world. It's not a matter of highfalutin ideals and the trite, civilizational "stuff"; it's just that when "you" feel "you" are unquestionably superior to some other tribe(s), well, "you" want these children of... lesser (anthropological) gods to bow to "you" and constantly "sing" how great "you" are in every respect. Like the communist ideologues of yesteryear, messianic "True Europeans" usually lead the charge these days... Often, their "humanism without borders" effortlessly combines with "rear guard" nationalism. Ain't this some... miracle or what ?

Military victories invariably breed arrogance in populations. The victors' self-congratulatory narratives constitute the bedrock of mainstream nationalism. On the other hand, military defeats may generate some patriotic sentiments in the "loser" populations. That said, such sentiments are usually eclipsed in those instances where revanchist adventures (i.e., payback) end up being militarily successful.

Geopolitical history has long lasting consequences. The longest lasting of such consequences are the sentiments entertained by the "psyches" of various peoples which, despite "civilization's pieces of paper", remain tribal and antagonistic in the extreme.

Thoughts - Part II

Frogs in the Pot...

From a "crude" Western civilizational perspective on the street, a good Russian, Farsi or Mandarin / Cantonese speaker better be a... neutered one or worse. Conversely, from a "crude" Eurasian and East Asian perspective, a good Euro-American, well, conversely. All the "civilized" talk in the world can never truly reverse "things" in these very antagonistic... "psyches". At best, "things" will be managed on an ad hoc basis until the next crisis erupts.

The key "tribal choice" is invariably Boolean. Either continue with sporadic, limited clashes and provocations or go for the big kaboom (i.e., ). The former allows metropolitan populations to enjoy warm and fuzzy jacuzzis filled with... self-congratulatory importance, what with "rear guard" nationalism / internationalism and grandiose, civilizational purposes and gradients...

The Western civilizational elites that matter appear to proceed on the assumption that their "slowly boiling the Eurasian / East Asian frog" approach will not result in a strategic nuclear exchange; rather, it will lead to a never-ending series of Eurasian / East Asian "mini-withdrawals", "retrenchments" and "benign mutations", each such reversal hopefully (?) to be viewed (by Eurasian / East Asian powers) as not worth proceeding with a "final" grand settling of accounts... There always is the "law of unintended consequences", of course !

The preceding is entirely consistent with a certain... "neo-something" dogma / concept envisaging a "slow motion"... strangulation / conquest of Eurasia / East Asia ! It is "generally hoped" that the "slow motion" will not trigger a strategic nuclear exchange !

By the way, had Applied... Communism been wildly successful, the "frogs" would have been Euro-American in all probability...

My Focus

Okay, fine, depending on one's perceived risk tolerance, he may worry a lot, somewhat or not at all. But, my posts covering this matter ultimately aim at putting some flesh on the... dismal eventuality: i.e., under what sort of envisaged conditions will the "frogs" and many, many others on this earth evaporate in a split second ?

Thoughts - Part III

Hybrid Warfare

Imperial expanses doggedly pursue "full spectrum dominance". It's in their civilizational DNA, so to speak. To this end, they invariably engage in hybrid warfare. Here are some of its contemporary modes:

Media warfare
Cyber warfare
Intelligence warfare
Economic warfare
Financial warfare
"Regime" destabilization
Proxy military conflict
"Limited" military conflict

Miscalculations ?

Regarding nuclear war, frequently encountered commentaries focus on potentially fateful technical errors / accidents. Okay, technology is a two-way street; postmodernist ideology notwithstanding...

What about fateful miscalculations though ? How could they happen ? Can they be avoided ? Well, one thing at a time...

In my opinion, it's the context that really matters. For example, there isn't any compelling reason for the Anglo-Saxons to nuke the Franco-Germans (or the other way around) nowadays. Rhetorically, at least, all these Euro-Americans enjoy a "people's lovefest" ! SO, miscalculations are bound to be contingent on "people's frostiness" or worse...

Wargaming... Frustrations

Elsewhere in these forums:

Many scenarios involve {H2H} combat where one side is attacking while the other one is grimly hanging on to fewer and fewer objectives as the game unfolds. Although the defender may eventually prevail by hanging on to that last precious objective, his psychology of being pushed to the wall and witnessing the wholesale decimation of his units can be problematic, to say the least. This represents a tangible threat to friendliness.

Actually, it could get much, much worse...

Thoughts - Part IV

MAD: Civilizational Logic vs. Tribal Psychology

The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is supposed to provide human societies with a more or less "unshakable" belief in the virtual impossibility of a future nuclear holocaust. MAD presupposes cool, deliberate, civilizational logic, of course. Trouble is, man just dons the garb of civilization; darker, repressed, tribal urges are just on... hold ! Most of the time, that is...

In my opinion, the fulcrum upon which the practical effectiveness of MAD rests (or not) is mass psychology; especially, as it may affect elites and decision makers. Something like 100 years ago, Gustave Le Bon's "Psychologie des foules" clearly stated that civilizational sophistication constitutes no absolutely air tight defense against the siren calls of dark, tribal sentiments; given certain fertile conditions, of course !

From What "They" DO to "Us" to... Who "They" ARE in "Our" Eyes

Earlier in this thread, I made reference to some poor... "frogs". Okay, let's continue on this very tack. Slowly cranking up the pot's heat is an apt analogy to perceived, repetitive injuries inflicted upon some "defending" human collectivity. It's extremely important to clarify that it's the "defender's" perception that is critical here. This perception invariably entails an "enemy" who just refuses to stop and stand pat.

There may come a time when an ominous tectonic shift takes place in the "defending" collectivity's mass psychology. A dangerous, psychological Rubicon is crossed. Namely, the "defending" collectivity's perceived injuries themselves are no longer the focal point ! Nay ! Instead, the "enemy" collectivity in toto is "evil" and should not exist on this earth "simply" because of "who they are, period" !

Once that happens, well, well, "we" find "ourselves" in very "fertile" territory...

HexCode wrote: ↑2024-01-11 11:03, Thursday Frogs in the Pot...

It looks to me that right now the frogs are being slowly cooked everywhere, not just on one side. The world we knew since 1945 appears to be dead, it's just that nobody bothered to let the corpse know it died; but we're still waiting to see what will come to replace it, there doesn't appear to be a viable long term alternative available at the moment.

Now, i grew up in a part of the world where dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the econo-political ruling elite is "business as usual", just as is the realization that the situation cannot be improved - every change so far at the top (through peaceful means / democratic elections or through a violent overthrow / revolution) did not bring an improvement, just replaced one set of thieving despots with another, often with help and blessing from "friends" from abroad, be this Euro-America or Eurasia (or both). I think in psychology this type of state of mind is being called learned helplessness.

Lately i see more and more of that same here in the Prosperous West; the people aren't stupid not to understand they are being cheated, that the middle class is slowly but steadily being eroded and pushed down towards poverty and precarity, yet all they are being offered for a political choice is theoretical musings about identity politics where all (or rather: both) political parties are in perfect agreement that we live in the best econo-political system that can be bought by $1.00 of lobbyist money. While the few rich are getting richer every day, there seems to be noone who is taking into consideration the plight of the Joe Ordinary.

But, while Joe O's of this world are smart enough to understand they ended up with the shitty end of the stick, they are still stupid enough to fall for the guys offering simple and quick solution to a complex problem. And that is extremely dangerous.

Because we've been there before, and it didn't end pretty.

And this time there are nukes...

One of many unintended consequences of WWII has been the post-war emergence and subsequent rise of a reasonably well educated (not just narrowly trained) and optimistic middle class in the "West". Its rise came to a screeching halt something like 30 years ago. Ever since, the "process" has been reversing; hence, progressive erosion...

Yes, the "whys" are quite complex. Most importantly, postmodernist, imperial society "suffers" from hyper-complexity. I'm afraid there's no "cure" for this. In any case, "our" Zeitgeist calls for individual, practical accommodation. The connection with learned helplessness is pretty obvious. The other side of the civilizational coin entails a small minority which takes advantage of "our" Zeitgeist big time; unapologetically as well...

Conceptually, cooking the "frog" is like persistent, static friction. The... chefs invariably believe (hope ?) that dynamic friction will never happen. What if it does, though ? Well:

Socioeconomic turmoil; check !
Caesarist politics; check !
Geopolitical adventurism; check !
Scapegoat identification and punishment; check !
People's hatred; check !

Kaboom ? Well, I'm not finished yet...

apropos first few post and "world" - of course not related but is good for laugh...

reading (pardon) in WC today some text (our) about Elisabeth Olsen, actress and she allegedly by text (never heard, but do not follow) said few years ago: "Serbia is country without anything, was always ruled by others and exists only for 13 years" (so i guess she said it in 2019, even if not mentioned in text)...and she quasi spent 2 weeks here years before that statement.

well mild shock, albeit more fun than one to feel bad about... and we are talking one of oldest independent countries in whole east Europe in some "sui iuris" almost 200 years... pause of some 350 years before and then almost 800-900 years of some statehood ; (here, not to mention Servius who ruled Rome))...can imagine how it is for many others in the world. BTW, good luck with tries to animate or tell anything in small pub - as you noticed ; my tries to "fish" someone with own subjects was as it was, but nonetheless like the stories i shared, wasn't hard... really don't know what else to add, added to sport & "sandals", good luck again

Thoughts - Part V

Expansionist Psychology

There's a potentially fateful ingredient inherent in large scale expansionism. Every step forward tends to further reinforce some prior held belief that unquestionable superiority of some kind is destined to carry the day, come hell or high water. The gradual expansion itself amounts to proof positive of being "on the right side of history"...

The foregoing psychological proclivities generate a self-fulfilling, geopolitical teleology:

A) "Our" geopolitical teleology guarantees "our" ultimate success...

B) "Our" ultimate success can only be a 100% success ! Anything less would amount to a "spectacular failure"...

C) "We" are more than willing to keep on taking so called risks lest "we" spectacularly fail...

D) Why is "spectacular failure" unthinkable ? Because, of the unbearable pain of having to look at "ourselves" in all kinds of "mirrors" (Ingmar Bergman ?) within the context of facts threatening to undermine our hitherto doctrinal belief in "our" self-evident / indisputable superiority...

IF SO, expansionism knows no psychological Rubicon. The incremental push forward continues more or less unabated. By definition, the "rejectionists" will eventually surrender / mutate. Why ? Because "History" and "our"... indisputable superiority guarantee total success. To recapitulate, risks are unimportant. "Destiny" has already picked the ultimate winners and losers.

In a nutshell: Unbridled pride, arrogance and hubris on a grand scale.

Let's take a look at the obverse side of the... coin.

"Rejectionist" Psychology

There may be a potentially fateful ingredient inherent in geopolitical "rejectionism". Every retrenchment tends to further reinforce some prior held belief that unquestionable, expansionist hostility of some kind is destined to continue unabated, come hell or high water. The gradual retrenchment itself amounts to proof positive of being continually threatened...

Once again, the foregoing psychological proclivities generate a self-fulfilling, geopolitical teleology:

A) "Our" geopolitical teleology demands dogged resistance...

B) "Our" penultimate goal can only be independent survival ! Anything less would amount to a "deadly failure" of "ours"...

C) "We" are more than willing to keep on resisting, forever if need be, lest "we" cease being independently unique...

D) Why is anything but "independent & unique survival" unthinkable ? Because, of the unbearable pain of having to look at "ourselves" in all kinds of "mirrors" (Ingmar Bergman ?) within the context of facts threatening to undermine our hitherto doctrinal belief in "our" self-evident / indisputable independence and uniqueness, the preservation of which demands that we resist, resist, resist...

By definition, then, "rejectionists" cannot accept eventual surrender / mutation. Why ? Because "Independent Uniqueness" is never negotiable.

In a nutshell: Unbridled pride in one's independent uniqueness on a regional scale.

Way back in 1945, the following slogan had been plastered on some wall:

BERLIN BLEIBT DEUTSCH

One may want to reflect on the sentiments behind the slogan and freely speculate on alternate... history had the "defenders" possessed nuclear weapons !

Suicidal Tribalism

"We" will destroy "you". If "we" cannot do it "ourselves", "we" will get "our friends" to do it... Even if this means our "own" destruction.

Here goes some corroboration coming to us from classical antiquity. It's a Fable by Aesop:

Two Enemies

Two men who were deadly enemies to each other were sailing in the same boat. They decided to keep as far apart as possible. One man seated himself in the stern and the other in the prow of the boat. A violent storm arose and the boat was in great danger of sinking. The man at the stern asked the pilot which of the two ends of the boat would go under first. The pilot replied that, in all probability, the prow would sink first. The man at the stern exclaimed, then, that "death would not be grave to me, if I could only see my enemy die before me".

"Suicidal Tribalism" addresses situations where specific populations hate so much other specific populations (usually, in a reciprocal manner) that they wish to exterminate them, "once and for all". This kind of socio-psychological condition may influence key decision makers as well...

One can only speculate what Rome and Carthage would have done had they possessed nuclear weapons... I mean, Romans and Carthaginians hated each other with a passion mostly for what they were as opposed to merely what they were doing, say, in Sicily...

These days, the intended execution of a... nuclear first strike with or without "launch on warning" appears to be just a remote possibility ! Come to think of it, barroom brawls and soccer hooliganism are infinitely preferable, even thugs shooting at each other... Wait, something is telling me that soccer hooliganism and rear guard nationalism are intimately connected...

Thoughts - Part VI

Winnable Nuclear War: Think Tank... Logic

Sometimes, movie scripts are worth 10,000 pages of think tank position papers...

From "Fail Safe" (1964) directed by Sidney Lumet:

When the Russians know bombs will fall on Moscow, they will surrender. They know that whatever they do then, they cannot escape destruction. Don't you see, sir ? This is our chance. We never would have made the first move deliberately... but Group Six has made it for us by accident. We must take advantage of it. History demands it. We must advise the president not to recall those planes. These are Marxist fanatics, not normal people. They do not reason the way you reason, General Black. They're not motivated by human emotion such as rage and pity. They are calculating machines. They will look at the balance sheet, and they will see they cannot win.

From "The Sum of All Fears" (2002) directed by Phil Alden Robinson:

We prepare to take out their land-based missiles with a nuclear strike, find and kill their subs, knock out whatever planes they have on the ground and mobilize our fighters to destroy the ones they already have in the air... They'll be left with, at best, a few hundred nukes, the ones we can't find. Mostly the... smaller, more mobile, less accurate kind. All those can do is target our cities. But they know to an absolute certainty that we will respond against their cities. Sir, I believe they'll keep their 300 nukes as a deterrent against any future aggressor. I think they'll push back from the table and call it a night.

If you think that such "specialists" and politicians do not really exist, think again ! However, it's unlikely that such characters will wake up one morning and decide that it's about time their "side"... wins in such a spectacularly decisive manner ! A petty quarrel with one's wife during breakfast may be necessary but (hopefully ) hardly sufficient. SO, besides the already assumed bad blood between the "enemy" societies, a fateful triggering event leading to a tit-for-tat uncontrolled escalation between the two "sides" is de rigueur...

To recapitulate: Nuclear Warriors of the think tank kind have been around for something like 70 years now. The point is, though, given a tit-for-tat escalation, how influential will such people's input be to the decision making that will actually count for... everything ?

HexCode wrote: ↑2024-01-15 04:20, Monday Thoughts - Part VI

Winnable Nuclear War: Think Tank... Logic

Sometimes, movie scripts are worth 10,000 pages of think tank position papers...

Dr. Strangelove, of course

HexCode wrote: ↑2024-01-15 04:20, Monday To recapitulate: Nuclear Warriors of the think tank kind have been around for something like 70 years now. The point is, though, given a tit-for-tat escalation, how influential will such people's input be to the decision making that will actually count for... everything ?

The thing is - the more we are away from the last truly big war the less the current decision makers have an actual practical idea of the consequences of their decisions so they are more likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Thoughts - Part VII

Operational... Psychology

The military personnel formally tasked and expected to carry out the authorized use / launch of nuclear weapons are not think tank armchair types. That said, they're humans subject to their very own personal psychological urges, even demons...

From "Crimson Tide" (1995) directed by Tony Scott:

Captain: You do qualify your remarks. Somebody asked me if we should have bombed Japan... a simple, "Yes, by all means, sir. Drop that f*cker. Twice."

Theoretically, officially, if you like, the Captain's attitude is operationally... reassuring; meaning that, once the orders are received, they will be faithfully executed without... complications. However, that's not all ! The thinly disguised antipathy regarding "qualified remarks" plus the reference to Japan betray personal frustration. The Captain likes to fight his "enemies"...

Captain: We all know what this means. It's not something one would wish for... but we have the obligation under authenticated orders... issued by our Commander-ln-Chief to prevent the attack on our country.

In my opinion, this is the obligatory "public" talk... The all but expected references to the "Commander-ln-Chief" and "our country" conceal the Captain's all important personal psychological angle. Most likely, he is imagining himself as the ultimate decision maker. By the way, the Captain appears to be in total sync with the contemplated first use / preemptive strike !

Executive Officer: We launch. They see us. They launch. Our birds pass each other in the air. Boom ! What do you get ?

Chief of the Boat: Nuclear war.

Executive Officer: Nuclear holocaust.

I believe the above exchange to constitute the crux of the matter here. The Chief of the Boat may be a... straight shooter doing everything by the book. Trouble is, the "book" stops at "war". In other words, it presupposes some post-nuclear war outcome worth living for. On the other hand, the Executive Officer refers to a "holocaust". This reference goes way beyond the... competence of military strategists and rank and file. It's not just, horror of all horrors, "qualified"; nay ! It's terrifyingly eschatological !

By the way, it's most telling that the movie plot all but straightforwardly suggests that a bunch of (mostly but not exclusively) white officers would rather trigger a preemptive nuclear strike rather than obey the orders of the Executive Officer who just... happens to be Afro-American and clearly, better... educated ! It's psychology... stupid !

Thoughts - Part VIII

Nuclear War: How Many "Sides" ?

Can one have a "War" encompassing just one "Side" ? Well, civil war comes to mind but, even then, there're belligerent "Sides" internal to the usual... "Side".

What about "Nuclear War" though ? How many "Sides" does it take to have... one ? Time to turn a bit... clinical here. The real issue is: "who" will be nuking "whom" ?

Aside from the possibility of nuclear terrorism, the UN, NATO, the EU and so on cannot nuke anyone ! So, let's concentrate on countries which may (or not) equate the State with the Nation... There're relatively few countries currently known to possess nuclear weapons. SO, there're just a few potential "nukers" around... On the other hand, there're plenty of countries which could be "nuked", at least in... theory !

If a "nuker" country were to nuke a "non-nuker" one, would this amount to "Nuclear War" ? I mean, remember the slogan:

"We are one, nuke Iran" ?

This brings "us" to

One-Sided Use of Nuclear Weapons

In my opinion, if a "nuker" country were to nuke a "non-nuker" one, that very act would definitely amount to an act of (nuclear) war ! In fact, it wouldn't matter an iota whether some sort of conventional warfare indeed preceded it (or, perhaps, more to the point, did not).

Multi-Sided Use of Nuclear Weapons

This is the sort of "Nuclear War" that terrifies many people. Generally, the "nukers" are bound to get nuked too ! One often comes across the clinical expression "Nuclear Exchange". The historically "classic" scenario has pitted the US against the now defunct USSR; hence, a certain fixation on Two-Sided Nuclear War.

However:

Is it that unthinkable to contemplate a future Nuclear Exchange between the US and Russia which would also precipitate "nukers" such as say, China and the UK... joining in ? I mean, such apocalyptic events would definitely amount to having lots of "fun" at humanity's ultimate party to end all parties... No doubt, good ol' Mephisto would be distributing the appropriate invitations to that party !

Thoughts - Part IX

No First Use. Really ?

The issue of "renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons" occasionally surfaces in "public" discourse.

Truism: If one doesn't possess nuclear weapons, well, there's no need to renounce anything, right ?

Okay, what about potential "nukers" though ? Is this a serious issue ? I think not ! Civilization's pieces of paper and sound-bytes are irrelevant when certain apocalyptic chips are down...

To Possess Or Not ?

As a discussion topic, the "proliferation of nuclear weapons" does attract considerable "public" attention on and off.

Truism: If one does possess nuclear weapons, well, that's it, right ? Disarmament ? Yeah, right ! I mean, this poster is no starry-eyed idealist...

Okay, then, what about "developing nuclear weapons" ? Rationally speaking, it should be all about deterrence, right ? But deterrence of what ? That's where the potentially apocalyptic (or not) calculus gets complicated. There're a few typical cases to consider. Most importantly, "details" such as the actual use of battlefield (tactical) nukes vs. strategic nukes may make all the difference in the world...

In my opinion, the key consideration here is the presence or absence of a credible Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) calculus. The presence of MAD all but requires symmetrical calculus. Its absence is bound to invite asymmetrical calculus. Moreover, the thorny issue of what exactly it is that those declaratorily being "protected" by some "potential nuker's nuclear umbrella" should realistically expect if the apocalyptic... chips are ever down, well, is super thorny !

To top it all off, armchair calculus and applied... psychology are not exactly joined at the hip !

As far as my contributions under this topic go, well, this is the end of the line !

As explicitly promised in my first post, the thread I launched was fully intended to be a one off. Consequently, I'm out of here (i.e., the "Pub").

HexCode wrote: ↑2024-01-17 13:46, Wednesday To Possess Or Not ?

Unfortunately after the end of the Cold War I we entered an era where the victorious side started a deliberate effort to erode as much as possible the system of nuclear (and other) checks and balances as embodied in the UN. So basically now we entered a phase not unlike what was there before the UN (and its impotent predecessor, the League of Nations) where Might is Right.

Basically, today only the nations that do posses nukes are truly sovereign and independent (that is, if they even have such ambitions, because some do not). And all others, the non-nuclear ones, can only seek to align themselves to one of the nuclear ones. Trying to forge an independent and neutral / non-aligned path is all but impossible now unless you're backing it up with nukes.

Which forces us into a cycle of proliferation, and preemptive military operations to prevent it, which can and will mutate into proxy wars between the nuclear powers, with the risk of escalation and direct involvement, and then kablooey...