woolaf

No it's not. And, if Russia did threaten to escalate if NATO supported Ukraine, then (a) it's threats failed and (b) it cheapened the currency of nuclear threats because NATO was cautious, but it did not withdraw support for Ukraine and Ukraine did not back down.

If it says "stay out of our way or we'll nuke you," then the other side has to believe the stakes were high enough to justify the start of a nuclear war. For tariffs? For bombing a small regional state? If the threat isn't credible, it either doesn't work or it creates a commitment trap. (2/2)

Russia dd not threaten nuclear escalation; it reminded NATO it had nuclear weapons to induce caution in NATO. NATO did not need a reminder, it was already cautious wrt assistance to Ukraine, at least at the start. Second, what does the U.S. want to do where nuclear threats would be credible? (1/2)

Only if the threat of nuclear use is credible in the circumstance where they want a free hand. "Reduce your tariffs or we'll nuke you!" "Sell us Greenland or we'll nuke you!" Otherwise, it's at best a paper tiger, and, at worst, a commitment trap.

In other words "who are we trying to deter" and "what are we trying to deter then from doing?" Are nuclear weapons a credible deterrent in these cases? Or are they just another symbol of U.S. power (like tariffs and murder on the high seas) that allows for muscle flexing and bragging rights? (2/2)

Absolutely true, but there's a more basic question. If we are not concerned with "great power competition" or defense of our alliances, with economic competition being the only problem, then why do we need nuclear weapons at all? Status and stature? (1/2)

Wouldn't it also be covered by the "speech and debate" clause" since they were speaking in their capacity as Members of Congress? In my long tenure of work on the Hill, speech and debate protections infused almost every corner of Members' conversations.

Temps are in the 50s in DC today. Scarves are not needed.

This has been my greatest fear (highest expectation?) throughout the talk of "meetings with Putin." T is so motivated by the desire for a signing ceremony, photo op and Nobel Prize that he'll sign on to anything Putin puts in front of him.
The Russians wrote and this and the U.S. jumped on board.

I'm also not clear on why there is a section on NST in a "peace plan" for Ukraine. Unless the simple answer is the best answer: Putin tabled his list of demands on everything, including his proposal for NST and, after Wyckoff cobbled them together, Trump signed up for Putin's wish list.

I'd bet Russia wrote "START III," their name for New START, and the U.S. team translated it wrong and was too ignorant of the issues to know the difference. The whole thing reads like Putin's wish list. As I have long feared would happen, Trump just signed up for Putin's priorities.

I'd translate "resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation" [presumably between NATO and Russia?] as NATO steps back from Russia's borders and the U.S. steps back from NATO so Russia can escalate....

What perfect album came out the year you turned 16?

"Low IQ" is always a reference to a woman of color. He uses "nasty" to demean white women.

He was responsible for more nuclear disarmament than anyone who has actually advocated for nuclear disarmament. When he was VP, the Bush Administration reduced the nuclear stockpile by about 60%. Really annoys people when I call him the single greatest "unilateral disarmer" we've ever had.

Putin may have a broader agenda in mind, but the whole middle of the article about how the Russians used arms control to get to the table on broader issues is wrong. And the idea that the Russians see arms control as essential is wrong. Not sure where this framing came from, but its bizarre. 2/2

Pre-planned, long-scheduled tests of new delivery vehicles is not "nuclear chest thumping." The framing of this article is wrong. James and Pavel were right, but buried in the middle, between a German analyst who was wrong about the messaging and a Russian propagandist. Bizarre framing. (1/2)

Except all that other stuff will be stopped by the amazing Golden Dome! Only a radioactive tsunami can fill the deterrence gap! That was the explanation for Poseidon when Putin revealed it in 2018

Fred Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon. The Bomb is also good. Anything by Richard Rhodes.

It’s pretty clear he means delivery systems, not warheads, but it’s absurd that he doesn’t know the difference and even more absurd that he doesn’t know that we test delivery systems all the time. And yes, every sentence in that post is wrong.

Yeah, but… what he said in Halifax, about the nature of a convo with the President doesn’t match with what Trump said to him after his talk in Halifax. I asked Hyten about this, but under circumstances that prevent me from sharing details of what he told me.

I thought he did a shower head EO already

That, theoretically, might deter US first strike. As Jon said, this all started after US withdrew from ABM and Russia assumed U.S. would acquire a real and capable BMD system. They don’t need all the exotic systems to do this, but they never down-selected to just one or two.

It’s also about avoiding the loss of “assured retaliatory” capability. Assume U.S. shoots first and thins out lan-based and bomber systems. Assume US NMD is sufficient to thin out SLBM retaliation. Aquire ability to go over, around, and under U.S. defenses in 3rd strike. (1)

For the first question the movie posits both possible SSBN launch and potential cyber interference with satellites, but I don’t know enough about satellites to know if either is plausible. On the second, i doubt we’d go with only 2 GBIs. Probably at least 4 per incoming missile. Ask @armscontrolwonk

It wasn’t just who gave the advice (he’s not briefed on the options, just the procedures), but also the extreme nature of the advice for one incoming missile!

Am I the only one who screamed “no, just no!” at the recommendation from the guy with the football???? Where was the CJCS? Yes I felt the human tension, but there’s only so much disbelief that I can suspend on the scenario.

This sums it up perfectly

They express the opinion of a majority of the Members of one house of Congress (or both, if they are Joint resolutions.) That's more than nothing, and I salute and support a public campaign on nuclear dangers, but there's a lot less there than meets the eye. (fin)

So the "success" was in educating and mobilizing public opinion, not in freezing nuclear programs. If this is the current goal, then all power to you, but the politics of this era are very different. Last point--resolutions aren't "laws." They don't require any change in programs or policies. (3)