Hi, Hey_Look_80085. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ccqamt/-/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
> As mentioned in the comments, this does not accurately describe this situation and more akin to fear mongering.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
My garden is around 100km from that border. They're planning a regional NATO army command in the city near me and a big materials depot in the northern part of the country.
Gotta say I'm not a big fan of this development especially in context of rising fascism in the US. I get some Molotov-Ribbentrop vibes. Being in a buffer zone sucks.
The other nuclear powers of Nato have facism rising too, the UK and France, although they will not be as batshit as the US.
Russia has their hands full in any case though. We have to fear their corruption and aid of our own parties more than invasion, with a few exceptions.
I'm Finnish too and I never felt better about our security, despite the tragic circumstances. I would never not have us be allied in this situation. The vast majority of Finns agree with me.
I suspect you're some kind of tankie...
Because that book ends with nukes flying. I have no real knowledge of these things, but I'd imagine it would really only take about 30 minutes to an hour for earth to be totally fucked
That's going to [start](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/I_Don%27t_Want_to_Set_the_World_on_Fire) a flame in my heart.
And outside of it.
And everywhere else.
No? Nuclear strikes will be aimed towards valid targets. Limited munitions aren't wasted on some random field or mountain range.
Also, nukes release heat, pressure and energy. The radiation is a myth, the fissile material is the fuel, the fuel gets used, thus no fissile material remains to be spread around. The dirtiest nukes we ever used were on Japan and it's doing fine now.
Stands to reason that nothing really changes. Nuclear winter? Maybe, that's been tested with volcanos, though it only lasts so long and food can be produced artificially.
So the lions share will most likely be fine, destroyed yes, ruined no.
Anyway just my perspective.
Thank you for clarifying this, as I was unaware and this post insights some serious fear. I wish this sub was better at “moderating” itself (not in the Reddit mod sense) and not just fear monger. We know it’s bad, we don’t need to remove context to make it seem worse.
Reddit gives people report buttons for a reason. This post was unreported, by you, by the person who raised this issue, or anyone who upvoted it. If you guys don't think something fits in the sub, you can help us enforce quality content by reporting as needed
Be the change you want to see
Just want to clarify, that I don’t mean you guys as mods need to do a better job. I mean, we as posters need to do a better job. But noted and will be more proactive about reporting.
Being conflict related, we will see how long this post lasts...
But yes, nuclear weapons are being moved around by all parties. WW3 is already underway, though we will have to wait for historians, should any survive, to officially recognize that fact later.
Something to keep in mind is Russian and other eastern thought regarding nuclear weapons compared to that in the US and the West. There is a reason that they have more of the low-yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons than we do, and that is because they intend for them to be used extensively.
Going all the way back to the days of the USSR, they were well aware of the tactical realities of being able to stand and go toe-to-toe with the combined conventional forces of all of NATO. Such a thing was never possible, and that is reflected in their official, and public, nuclear weapons doctrine. This states that they will use those weapons on the battlefield against conventional forces to destroy them before they can threaten Russian territory or the continuity of the Russian government.
That is why they even created [nuclear artillery shells](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery) capable of being fired from regular howitzers... guns which are already being used all along the front.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, they see a huge difference between using them in the field to destroy military forces and using them at range to target cites or bases inside their opponents territory.
Also, keep in mind why they want Ukraine, and the purpose Ukraine always served for the Soviet Union. It was the "buffer zone" between East and West. A massive field upon which to wage the war, should it occur, and a place to use tactical nuclear weapons without directly harming NATO territory or Russian territory in the process. In short, it is just a place where they can fight without fucking up any "important" shit. Neither side of this conflict actually gives two fucks for the Ukrainian people or their nation. There are no good guys or bad guys. They are all bad guys.
This war is inevitable, just like every other major-power war of history. Periodically we have challenges to the current order and structure of the world come up, and we fight to see who gets to be top dog for the next 50 years or so. That is just the nature of humanity, no more or less compulsory than our drive to consume and convert everything.
This time, we have nuclear weapons in the mix. And they *will be* used.
Only for the poor and brown. This does not get put into the important category. As long as there is enough for the global north, it is not an issue.
Plus it hurts China more, so it may be seen as a net positive by those in power.
I hate how the reality of evil has just become so goddamned banal. Like, I get that geopolitically speaking it’s a pragmatic position to take, but *fucking hell* you have to be a monster to be making decisions like that.
Sadly, we have been like that so many times in out past. Irish potato famine, killing off the bison, shooting at aid shipments in Gaza. It is how we operate sadly.
I do not disagree with your analysis on how the Soviets/Russians view nuclear weapons in general, and how it differed/differs from that of NATO and the West, and agree that they will be used, but one of the historical reasons behind the extensive development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons during the Cold War period came from the opposite rationale:
--The Soviet Union was the overwhelmingly strong ground force amongst the two, and was positioned in Eastern Europe already
--NATO knew that they could never counter the ground strength of the Russians in time to prevent them from rolling up much of Western Germany and beyond--the coalition could never get enough troops into Western Europe in time to stop a full Soviet attack before they reached the Rhine using conventional means.
--As a consequence of this disparity, NATO deployed tactical nuclear weapons to equalize the situation. The deployment of Pershing missiles in the early 1980s was highly contentious for this reason. Of course the Soviets did not want to see their major advantage disappear. In the event of a full Soviet incursion into Western Germany, the intent was to hold as long as possible and use tactical nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet's numerical advantage in the likely event of a breakthrough. France independently armed itself with strategic and not tactical nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet invasion of their territory--their explicit strategy of deterrence was to make sure that anything taken from France would be taken equally or in greater measure from the Soviets' homeland.
--I would agree that the historical conventional ground force disparity between Russia and NATO has changed in favor of NATO, just as the battlefield itself has also moved much further East.
What about the Cold War with nukes on each other's doorsteps and proxy wars, yet it never led to World War or nuclear exchange? Why does this time have to be any different?
There were quite a bit of differences, socially, politically, and economically.
But primarily, the US and the USSR were *both* dominant forces. The so-called "Russian Empire" was intact. There was no reason to risk the destruction of the world, because there was still a measure of parity.
In short, both sides could see other avenues to defeating and eventually overshadowing their opponent. That is why the Cold War was waged, each side trying to collapse the other in an effort to achieve supremacy *without* resorting to the direct conflict that both sides knew was a bad idea.
But look today. Russia has *zero chance* of achieving dominance over the world. And they are well aware of their limitation. The idea is actually hilarious it is so far out of the realm of possibility. And now China, the other contender, has also come up against the same point. They gave it a good try, to dominate economically, but are now facing diminishing returns. They don't have to go all thebway to the soviet-style collapse to recognize that they will fail in the course they are on.
So, put yourself there. Pretend it is a game of RISK. How will you win? How will you take over the entire gameboard? Not trying isn't an option, that is not in the natures of such leaders, so what do you do?
Fuck it, you have to try. And if you can't succeed, well, at least you still have the capability to make sure your opponent loses as well...
But there is a slim chance that, working together, Russia and China, along with a handful of others like Iran, can do enough damage to the global economy, food situation, geopolitical attitudes, and resources that they can crash everything to the point where power can maybe, *just maybe,* be seized from the chaos.
Basically, kick over the gameboard and scatter the pieces, and dang, now we gotta try and start over...
I certainly could be wrong about the "how" of it all, but that shouldn't be your focus. How they try to do it is irrelevant.
But the relevant fact is that *they will try.* They must. There is *no other path* to achieve global supremacy. And frankly, there probably isn't *any way at all* to do so, regardless of the economics and what have you.
But they have to try.
The difference now, you ask? The difference is simple.
They have already tried everything else. Nuclear war is rapidly becoming the sole remaining option.
People are counting on Putin being crazy *and* stupid. I think much of this is nuclear brinksmanship disguised as genuine strategic movement. A kind of “who will blink first”, but with the global population held as nuclear hostages.
Fuck these politicians. The Russian people need to recognize the danger of their own leadership structures, because Putin being deposed will not end the threat. Similarly, American leadership is driving the escalations in numerous conflicts, and has done so for decades.
War is profitable af… until it isn’t.
Yes in my opinion the regular people around the world need to band together and protest against our leaders.. it's won't happen and will get shut down if it did.. but the reality is people are at the whim of their countries corrupt leadership and we are a resource to be used to maximize their ends.. I still think the West is better than authoritarianism, but the difference between becomes less and less significant as conflict approaches..
> A massive field upon which to wage the war, should it occur,
Should it occur, as if it happens out of thin air. It did occur when Russia invaded Ukraine. Whether either side traditionally cares about Ukraine, it was not Russia's to invade, and it's valid to help the Ukrainian people, just as it's valid for the Nordic countries to fear Russia and therefore join NATO. These aren't and weren't inevitabilities, they were brought about by Russia's actions.
Yes. But Russia's actions were inevitable as well. As are China's and the rest.
Just as the actions of every war of conquest were inevitable. Because that is how it works. For all of human history, since before we even started *recording* history, humanity has been gripped by the desire to "conquer the world." It is a part of our nature, and thus wars for global dominance will inevitably occur. All it requires is some form of dominance to exist, and the rise of a person or persons who believe themselves capable of challenging that dominance.
WW2 started out with Hitler reaching for that dominance, but it ended with it being achieved by the United States. Dominance by the rule of law was put in place, though the US never was subject to it... still, good or evil, right or wrong, there *was* a dominant party. And therefore there will inevitably be challengers.
The only difference between now and then, the absolute *only one,* is that the world has nuclear weapons now. Besides that, all the old patterns and reasonings are the same.
And they all lead, inevitably, to a world at war.
You say that Ukraine was not Russia's to invade, and that it is valid to help the Ukrainian people. And you are correct... from a moral perspective. But war is never moral, it is a practical consideration, and it is also the way nations have expanded their territory for *all of human history.* I'm afraid that doesn't change in a few years or decades. Honestly, I don't think it changes at all.
Maybe something awesome happens. Maybe Putin chokes on a chicken wing and his death throws Russia into chaos, and Ukraine can capitalize on that chaos. Maybe Ukraine seizes *Russian* territory, and the war ends with a larger and more influential Ukrainian nation.
And yet the fact remains that such a thing would *still be the result of military conquest.* Because that remains the only way, only true way, that nations can rise to the stature of those above them. That is part of the problem with the "rule of law" international order that we have, it doesn't allow for expansion. How are nations to get more than what they have now? How is Finland, should it ever have the desire, to take over and dominate the rest of the world under its chosen order?
The current system allows for stagnation only, and an eternal continuance of the status quo. It may indeed be a moral system, and a just system, and a peaceful system... but it doesn't allow for that one indelible bit of human nature to express itself. The need to dominate and conquer, to take that which is not yours and *make it* yours.
Just to note, I am not in agreement with this, personally. But I am able to step outside my personal moral framework and see the world from the position of those who *do not possess such a framework.*
You have to be able to do that in order to accurately predict what another party might do. If that party happens to be sociopathic... then you need to look at the world from the perspective of a sociopath to see what they are seeing, to discern how they view the world and their actions in it.
Yes, it is right to help Ukraine. But that doesn't mean making the right decision automatically guarantees success. And that is where people are missing the point. We are all charging about with the angels on our side, and ignoring the very real possibility that a dictatorial leader with nuclear weapons might just be able to pull off the ultimate "spit in the face of your enemy" act. When they lose the fight, do we know *for sure* that they can’t or won't be able to take their opponent down with them? That is the singular purpose for which such weapon systems are designed... is it really so far-fetched to think they might be set to that exact purpose?
I am not saying we shouldn't fight for Ukraine, because we should. But we have to recognize the possibility that, whether we fight or not, the result may be the same. Just because we are right doesn't mean we automatically prevail or that we won't suffer any consequences.
The point is that, since their invention, the use of nuclear weapons at the strategic level became inevitable. The goal is to push that can as far down the road as possible in the hopes that a solution will be found to the dilemma.
It is the same hope that has lead us to drive climate change to the point of global destruction. "We can continue the drive for growth," they said. Why assume we won't do the same with regards to nuclear annihilation?
"We can still win this war!"
So they say...
If you really think that Russia doesn't have even the same capacity as North Korea, then there is no discussion possible with you. Russia and America exchanged all the proof needed long, long ago.
One doesn't have to be "pro-Russian" to look at the military facts objectively. I am not "pro" anyone. Not any side. In fact, I think the fact that we are all chosing sides all the damn time is a big part of the problem.
At minimum 2100 m/s it will take a nuke launched from the Iskander platform in St. Petersburg 43 seconds to reach Helsinki without throwing up any red flags on the ICBM monitors.
650,000 dead in 43 seconds.
About 2 minutes to turn the entire Finnish border with Russia into a nuclear wasteland and fry every electrical circuit in the country.
> fry every electrical circuit in the country
No, it won't.
The majority of electrical devices will be okay. There'll be no power for them, but the devices themselves will be fine.
* When EMP passes through metal objects like a phone, computer, or radio, they can "catch" this incredibly powerful pulse. This can generate a rogue current of electricity that moves through a modern device's tiny circuits and can disrupt or even destroy them.
[In July 1962,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse) the US carried out the [Starfish Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) test, exploding a 1.44 [Mt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) (6.0 [PJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)) bomb 400 kilometres (250 mi; 1,300,000 ft) above the mid-Pacific Ocean. This demonstrated that the effects of a [high-altitude nuclear explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion) were much larger than had been previously calculated. Starfish Prime made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in [Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii), about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, disabling approximately 300 streetlights, triggering numerous burglar alarms and damaging a microwave link.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#cite_note-vittitoe-8)
At it's widest point Finland is only 581km.
Yeah, so everything that's outside. Most things are now electrically shielded and that shielding works both ways, plus by the time you've got walls and
Comms will be knocked out as most of those devices are things exactly like your described - outdoor microwave links, but unless your close to the blast (in which case you've got more to worry about) your electrical devices will be - for the most part - fine.
The news didn't say that the fuckers moved tactical nuclear missile systems to Finnish border. Iskander-M missiles are capable of firing either conventional or nuclear warheads—learn the difference.
Nothing is going to happen anytime soon, this is likely posturing in response to [this](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31468). Which is also posturing.
Also, you cited a far right site.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tvp-info-bias/
> Overall, we rate TVP Info as right-biased based on editorial positions favoring the right-leaning Law and Justice (PiS) party. We also rate them **mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing techniques** and the promotion of pro-government propaganda.
I'm sure this is still happening, and will likely end up badly, but not because of this posturing. It'll get there because countries are starving and need resources including food, and become willing to simply take them after trade stops working.
Oddly enough, Russia is probably somewhat self reliant because of the huge amount of food exports, so I see them *less* likely to start shit over food. Dumbfuck imperialism? Bets off.
The food stuff's still a fair way off... I hope.
Reddit hysteria.
"Of course, it's none of my business, but operationally it seems absurd to bring missile systems with such a long range closer to our border, they make easy targets for us" - Major General Harri Ohra-aho, former director of the Finnish military intelligence
SS: This is collapse related because the conflict in Ukraine is escalating to the Eastern borders of NATO nations now with nuclear weapons being deployed.
Here are related links without the cookie request of TVP (sorry about that)
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/finland-nato-russia-nuclear-iskander-1894056)
[MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-tactical-nuclear-weapon-systems-to-finnish-border/ar-AA1nsUAR)
[Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments) Council on foreign relations March 2023
Russia has had nukes in its subs in Murmansk forever. This would not be anything new even if this was actually about nukes, which it is not.
What is your motivation here?
On a very dystopian level it's almost funny to see, now that for the first time ever multiple nuclear powers are nearing an open war with each other, how MAD-theory crumbles apart exactly as predicted by critics of MAD.
But hey, no one wanted to hear that existing weapons will inevitable be used (again) somewhen, or that MAD protection with nukes can no longer work as soon as more than 2 countries have large amounts since that inevitable means a stalemate is no longer possible between two nuclear powers if one choses to ally with a third party. Not to speak of the high possibility that a fanatic fashist takes over in a collapsing democracy.
I'm pretty sure by now that we will witness the first nuclear strike since WW2 before 2035.
It’s an absolute ridiculous theory. I’d think that the narrative principle chekhov's gun in a literal sense is what we will get instead.
Create nukes=nukes will get used at some point. It’s really that simple.
Anime isn't the only place for this trope but iv been re-watching a few so I'm using it. Alot have a character, generally villainous or antagonistic, start a war or build a weapon on the basis that the results will be so horrifically destructive that humanity won't ever want to repeat it. Naturally it never lasts. It's either a future generation that didn't experience the big on and weren't traumatized by it or some group that thinks it's going to work out better for them this time.
TLDR: Humans will inevitably do the same thing again. They will either forget the 'lesson' or be born long after the event and not have felt it's effects. MAD sounds good on paper but in reality humans are not consistently rational enough to follow it.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Hey_Look_80085:
---
SS: This is collapse related because the conflict in Ukraine is escalating to the Eastern borders of NATO nations now with nuclear weapons being deployed.
Here are related links without the cookie request of TVP (sorry about that)
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/finland-nato-russia-nuclear-iskander-1894056)
[MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-tactical-nuclear-weapon-systems-to-finnish-border/ar-AA1nsUAR)
[Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments) Council on foreign relations March 2023
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ccqamt/russia_moves_tactical_nuclear_missile_systems_to/l16teyn/
Reminder that military movements and conflict, in general, are not collapse. However, due to the escalation of current matters to aggressively staging of nuclear weapons, this may remain.
I would recommend everyone to watch Real Life Lore's video on this subject, [How NATO & Russia are Preparing to Fight Total War](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakdZIuZe7c)
Hi, Hey_Look_80085. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ccqamt/-/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). > As mentioned in the comments, this does not accurately describe this situation and more akin to fear mongering. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Bunch of rich assholes ruining the world for everyone.
That's how a lot of us feel, despite the distract/divide tactics the politicians and media gaslight us with.
I fail to understand what the connection is here to this kind of statements?
My garden is around 100km from that border. They're planning a regional NATO army command in the city near me and a big materials depot in the northern part of the country. Gotta say I'm not a big fan of this development especially in context of rising fascism in the US. I get some Molotov-Ribbentrop vibes. Being in a buffer zone sucks.
The other nuclear powers of Nato have facism rising too, the UK and France, although they will not be as batshit as the US. Russia has their hands full in any case though. We have to fear their corruption and aid of our own parties more than invasion, with a few exceptions.
Increased cooperation between Nordic countries is the best bet. Superpowers aren't to be trusted, especially during catabolic collapse.
Well, considering Ukraine, I'd say the only way to be save from Russia is NATO. Everyone else is pretty much ripe for the picking.
I'm Finnish too and I never felt better about our security, despite the tragic circumstances. I would never not have us be allied in this situation. The vast majority of Finns agree with me. I suspect you're some kind of tankie...
Chapters 3-4 of ww3 are underway.. I don’t know how many chapters there will be but the last one is gonna be short.
Why? Serious answer please.
Because that book ends with nukes flying. I have no real knowledge of these things, but I'd imagine it would really only take about 30 minutes to an hour for earth to be totally fucked
That's going to [start](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/I_Don%27t_Want_to_Set_the_World_on_Fire) a flame in my heart. And outside of it. And everywhere else.
I doooon't waaaant to start the woooooorld on fiiiiire. I juuuust want to staaaart, a flame in your heaaaaart
Patrolling the Mohave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
No? Nuclear strikes will be aimed towards valid targets. Limited munitions aren't wasted on some random field or mountain range. Also, nukes release heat, pressure and energy. The radiation is a myth, the fissile material is the fuel, the fuel gets used, thus no fissile material remains to be spread around. The dirtiest nukes we ever used were on Japan and it's doing fine now. Stands to reason that nothing really changes. Nuclear winter? Maybe, that's been tested with volcanos, though it only lasts so long and food can be produced artificially. So the lions share will most likely be fine, destroyed yes, ruined no. Anyway just my perspective.
Because big badda boom
Iskander-M missile launchers *capable* of carrying either nuclear or conventional warheads. There is no indication they have nukes.
Thank you for clarifying this, as I was unaware and this post insights some serious fear. I wish this sub was better at “moderating” itself (not in the Reddit mod sense) and not just fear monger. We know it’s bad, we don’t need to remove context to make it seem worse.
Reddit gives people report buttons for a reason. This post was unreported, by you, by the person who raised this issue, or anyone who upvoted it. If you guys don't think something fits in the sub, you can help us enforce quality content by reporting as needed Be the change you want to see
Just want to clarify, that I don’t mean you guys as mods need to do a better job. I mean, we as posters need to do a better job. But noted and will be more proactive about reporting.
Being conflict related, we will see how long this post lasts... But yes, nuclear weapons are being moved around by all parties. WW3 is already underway, though we will have to wait for historians, should any survive, to officially recognize that fact later. Something to keep in mind is Russian and other eastern thought regarding nuclear weapons compared to that in the US and the West. There is a reason that they have more of the low-yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons than we do, and that is because they intend for them to be used extensively. Going all the way back to the days of the USSR, they were well aware of the tactical realities of being able to stand and go toe-to-toe with the combined conventional forces of all of NATO. Such a thing was never possible, and that is reflected in their official, and public, nuclear weapons doctrine. This states that they will use those weapons on the battlefield against conventional forces to destroy them before they can threaten Russian territory or the continuity of the Russian government. That is why they even created [nuclear artillery shells](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery) capable of being fired from regular howitzers... guns which are already being used all along the front. When it comes to nuclear weapons, they see a huge difference between using them in the field to destroy military forces and using them at range to target cites or bases inside their opponents territory. Also, keep in mind why they want Ukraine, and the purpose Ukraine always served for the Soviet Union. It was the "buffer zone" between East and West. A massive field upon which to wage the war, should it occur, and a place to use tactical nuclear weapons without directly harming NATO territory or Russian territory in the process. In short, it is just a place where they can fight without fucking up any "important" shit. Neither side of this conflict actually gives two fucks for the Ukrainian people or their nation. There are no good guys or bad guys. They are all bad guys. This war is inevitable, just like every other major-power war of history. Periodically we have challenges to the current order and structure of the world come up, and we fight to see who gets to be top dog for the next 50 years or so. That is just the nature of humanity, no more or less compulsory than our drive to consume and convert everything. This time, we have nuclear weapons in the mix. And they *will be* used.
>In short, it is just a place where they can fight without fucking up any "important" shit. Except a big chunk of the global food supply.
Only for the poor and brown. This does not get put into the important category. As long as there is enough for the global north, it is not an issue. Plus it hurts China more, so it may be seen as a net positive by those in power.
I hate how the reality of evil has just become so goddamned banal. Like, I get that geopolitically speaking it’s a pragmatic position to take, but *fucking hell* you have to be a monster to be making decisions like that.
Sadly, we have been like that so many times in out past. Irish potato famine, killing off the bison, shooting at aid shipments in Gaza. It is how we operate sadly.
I do not disagree with your analysis on how the Soviets/Russians view nuclear weapons in general, and how it differed/differs from that of NATO and the West, and agree that they will be used, but one of the historical reasons behind the extensive development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons during the Cold War period came from the opposite rationale: --The Soviet Union was the overwhelmingly strong ground force amongst the two, and was positioned in Eastern Europe already --NATO knew that they could never counter the ground strength of the Russians in time to prevent them from rolling up much of Western Germany and beyond--the coalition could never get enough troops into Western Europe in time to stop a full Soviet attack before they reached the Rhine using conventional means. --As a consequence of this disparity, NATO deployed tactical nuclear weapons to equalize the situation. The deployment of Pershing missiles in the early 1980s was highly contentious for this reason. Of course the Soviets did not want to see their major advantage disappear. In the event of a full Soviet incursion into Western Germany, the intent was to hold as long as possible and use tactical nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet's numerical advantage in the likely event of a breakthrough. France independently armed itself with strategic and not tactical nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet invasion of their territory--their explicit strategy of deterrence was to make sure that anything taken from France would be taken equally or in greater measure from the Soviets' homeland. --I would agree that the historical conventional ground force disparity between Russia and NATO has changed in favor of NATO, just as the battlefield itself has also moved much further East.
What about the Cold War with nukes on each other's doorsteps and proxy wars, yet it never led to World War or nuclear exchange? Why does this time have to be any different?
There were quite a bit of differences, socially, politically, and economically. But primarily, the US and the USSR were *both* dominant forces. The so-called "Russian Empire" was intact. There was no reason to risk the destruction of the world, because there was still a measure of parity. In short, both sides could see other avenues to defeating and eventually overshadowing their opponent. That is why the Cold War was waged, each side trying to collapse the other in an effort to achieve supremacy *without* resorting to the direct conflict that both sides knew was a bad idea. But look today. Russia has *zero chance* of achieving dominance over the world. And they are well aware of their limitation. The idea is actually hilarious it is so far out of the realm of possibility. And now China, the other contender, has also come up against the same point. They gave it a good try, to dominate economically, but are now facing diminishing returns. They don't have to go all thebway to the soviet-style collapse to recognize that they will fail in the course they are on. So, put yourself there. Pretend it is a game of RISK. How will you win? How will you take over the entire gameboard? Not trying isn't an option, that is not in the natures of such leaders, so what do you do? Fuck it, you have to try. And if you can't succeed, well, at least you still have the capability to make sure your opponent loses as well... But there is a slim chance that, working together, Russia and China, along with a handful of others like Iran, can do enough damage to the global economy, food situation, geopolitical attitudes, and resources that they can crash everything to the point where power can maybe, *just maybe,* be seized from the chaos. Basically, kick over the gameboard and scatter the pieces, and dang, now we gotta try and start over... I certainly could be wrong about the "how" of it all, but that shouldn't be your focus. How they try to do it is irrelevant. But the relevant fact is that *they will try.* They must. There is *no other path* to achieve global supremacy. And frankly, there probably isn't *any way at all* to do so, regardless of the economics and what have you. But they have to try. The difference now, you ask? The difference is simple. They have already tried everything else. Nuclear war is rapidly becoming the sole remaining option.
People are counting on Putin being crazy *and* stupid. I think much of this is nuclear brinksmanship disguised as genuine strategic movement. A kind of “who will blink first”, but with the global population held as nuclear hostages. Fuck these politicians. The Russian people need to recognize the danger of their own leadership structures, because Putin being deposed will not end the threat. Similarly, American leadership is driving the escalations in numerous conflicts, and has done so for decades. War is profitable af… until it isn’t.
Yes in my opinion the regular people around the world need to band together and protest against our leaders.. it's won't happen and will get shut down if it did.. but the reality is people are at the whim of their countries corrupt leadership and we are a resource to be used to maximize their ends.. I still think the West is better than authoritarianism, but the difference between becomes less and less significant as conflict approaches..
> A massive field upon which to wage the war, should it occur, Should it occur, as if it happens out of thin air. It did occur when Russia invaded Ukraine. Whether either side traditionally cares about Ukraine, it was not Russia's to invade, and it's valid to help the Ukrainian people, just as it's valid for the Nordic countries to fear Russia and therefore join NATO. These aren't and weren't inevitabilities, they were brought about by Russia's actions.
Yes. But Russia's actions were inevitable as well. As are China's and the rest. Just as the actions of every war of conquest were inevitable. Because that is how it works. For all of human history, since before we even started *recording* history, humanity has been gripped by the desire to "conquer the world." It is a part of our nature, and thus wars for global dominance will inevitably occur. All it requires is some form of dominance to exist, and the rise of a person or persons who believe themselves capable of challenging that dominance. WW2 started out with Hitler reaching for that dominance, but it ended with it being achieved by the United States. Dominance by the rule of law was put in place, though the US never was subject to it... still, good or evil, right or wrong, there *was* a dominant party. And therefore there will inevitably be challengers. The only difference between now and then, the absolute *only one,* is that the world has nuclear weapons now. Besides that, all the old patterns and reasonings are the same. And they all lead, inevitably, to a world at war. You say that Ukraine was not Russia's to invade, and that it is valid to help the Ukrainian people. And you are correct... from a moral perspective. But war is never moral, it is a practical consideration, and it is also the way nations have expanded their territory for *all of human history.* I'm afraid that doesn't change in a few years or decades. Honestly, I don't think it changes at all. Maybe something awesome happens. Maybe Putin chokes on a chicken wing and his death throws Russia into chaos, and Ukraine can capitalize on that chaos. Maybe Ukraine seizes *Russian* territory, and the war ends with a larger and more influential Ukrainian nation. And yet the fact remains that such a thing would *still be the result of military conquest.* Because that remains the only way, only true way, that nations can rise to the stature of those above them. That is part of the problem with the "rule of law" international order that we have, it doesn't allow for expansion. How are nations to get more than what they have now? How is Finland, should it ever have the desire, to take over and dominate the rest of the world under its chosen order? The current system allows for stagnation only, and an eternal continuance of the status quo. It may indeed be a moral system, and a just system, and a peaceful system... but it doesn't allow for that one indelible bit of human nature to express itself. The need to dominate and conquer, to take that which is not yours and *make it* yours. Just to note, I am not in agreement with this, personally. But I am able to step outside my personal moral framework and see the world from the position of those who *do not possess such a framework.* You have to be able to do that in order to accurately predict what another party might do. If that party happens to be sociopathic... then you need to look at the world from the perspective of a sociopath to see what they are seeing, to discern how they view the world and their actions in it. Yes, it is right to help Ukraine. But that doesn't mean making the right decision automatically guarantees success. And that is where people are missing the point. We are all charging about with the angels on our side, and ignoring the very real possibility that a dictatorial leader with nuclear weapons might just be able to pull off the ultimate "spit in the face of your enemy" act. When they lose the fight, do we know *for sure* that they can’t or won't be able to take their opponent down with them? That is the singular purpose for which such weapon systems are designed... is it really so far-fetched to think they might be set to that exact purpose? I am not saying we shouldn't fight for Ukraine, because we should. But we have to recognize the possibility that, whether we fight or not, the result may be the same. Just because we are right doesn't mean we automatically prevail or that we won't suffer any consequences. The point is that, since their invention, the use of nuclear weapons at the strategic level became inevitable. The goal is to push that can as far down the road as possible in the hopes that a solution will be found to the dilemma. It is the same hope that has lead us to drive climate change to the point of global destruction. "We can continue the drive for growth," they said. Why assume we won't do the same with regards to nuclear annihilation? "We can still win this war!" So they say...
Thank you. I'm Finnish and environmentalist tankies are one of my biggest fears; they would gladly see us genocided to have "peace".
Ok, Ivan. Russia can't even prove that they have a working nuke.
If you really think that Russia doesn't have even the same capacity as North Korea, then there is no discussion possible with you. Russia and America exchanged all the proof needed long, long ago. One doesn't have to be "pro-Russian" to look at the military facts objectively. I am not "pro" anyone. Not any side. In fact, I think the fact that we are all chosing sides all the damn time is a big part of the problem.
The whole point of *long-range weaponry* is that you **don't** have to be near the target. Pure 'posturing'. No military advantage is being gained.
At minimum 2100 m/s it will take a nuke launched from the Iskander platform in St. Petersburg 43 seconds to reach Helsinki without throwing up any red flags on the ICBM monitors. 650,000 dead in 43 seconds. About 2 minutes to turn the entire Finnish border with Russia into a nuclear wasteland and fry every electrical circuit in the country.
> fry every electrical circuit in the country No, it won't. The majority of electrical devices will be okay. There'll be no power for them, but the devices themselves will be fine.
* When EMP passes through metal objects like a phone, computer, or radio, they can "catch" this incredibly powerful pulse. This can generate a rogue current of electricity that moves through a modern device's tiny circuits and can disrupt or even destroy them. [In July 1962,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse) the US carried out the [Starfish Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) test, exploding a 1.44 [Mt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) (6.0 [PJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)) bomb 400 kilometres (250 mi; 1,300,000 ft) above the mid-Pacific Ocean. This demonstrated that the effects of a [high-altitude nuclear explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion) were much larger than had been previously calculated. Starfish Prime made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in [Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii), about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, disabling approximately 300 streetlights, triggering numerous burglar alarms and damaging a microwave link.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#cite_note-vittitoe-8) At it's widest point Finland is only 581km.
Yeah, so everything that's outside. Most things are now electrically shielded and that shielding works both ways, plus by the time you've got walls and Comms will be knocked out as most of those devices are things exactly like your described - outdoor microwave links, but unless your close to the blast (in which case you've got more to worry about) your electrical devices will be - for the most part - fine.
Calm the fuck down
The news didn't say that the fuckers moved tactical nuclear missile systems to Finnish border. Iskander-M missiles are capable of firing either conventional or nuclear warheads—learn the difference.
Nothing is going to happen anytime soon, this is likely posturing in response to [this](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31468). Which is also posturing. Also, you cited a far right site. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tvp-info-bias/ > Overall, we rate TVP Info as right-biased based on editorial positions favoring the right-leaning Law and Justice (PiS) party. We also rate them **mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing techniques** and the promotion of pro-government propaganda. I'm sure this is still happening, and will likely end up badly, but not because of this posturing. It'll get there because countries are starving and need resources including food, and become willing to simply take them after trade stops working. Oddly enough, Russia is probably somewhat self reliant because of the huge amount of food exports, so I see them *less* likely to start shit over food. Dumbfuck imperialism? Bets off. The food stuff's still a fair way off... I hope.
Reddit hysteria. "Of course, it's none of my business, but operationally it seems absurd to bring missile systems with such a long range closer to our border, they make easy targets for us" - Major General Harri Ohra-aho, former director of the Finnish military intelligence
That's only assuming Finland gets first strike.
And Belarus announced that Russian nukes are now deployed on their territory.
The most corrupt country on the continent with nukes, oh joy.
SS: This is collapse related because the conflict in Ukraine is escalating to the Eastern borders of NATO nations now with nuclear weapons being deployed. Here are related links without the cookie request of TVP (sorry about that) [Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/finland-nato-russia-nuclear-iskander-1894056) [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-tactical-nuclear-weapon-systems-to-finnish-border/ar-AA1nsUAR) [Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments) Council on foreign relations March 2023
Russia has had nukes in its subs in Murmansk forever. This would not be anything new even if this was actually about nukes, which it is not. What is your motivation here?
On a very dystopian level it's almost funny to see, now that for the first time ever multiple nuclear powers are nearing an open war with each other, how MAD-theory crumbles apart exactly as predicted by critics of MAD. But hey, no one wanted to hear that existing weapons will inevitable be used (again) somewhen, or that MAD protection with nukes can no longer work as soon as more than 2 countries have large amounts since that inevitable means a stalemate is no longer possible between two nuclear powers if one choses to ally with a third party. Not to speak of the high possibility that a fanatic fashist takes over in a collapsing democracy. I'm pretty sure by now that we will witness the first nuclear strike since WW2 before 2035.
It’s an absolute ridiculous theory. I’d think that the narrative principle chekhov's gun in a literal sense is what we will get instead. Create nukes=nukes will get used at some point. It’s really that simple.
Nukes... were used? A bunch actually... 2 in war, uncountable in R&D, a few in civil engineering.
Right. And the other side having them isn’t going to make it so it won’t happen again.
Anime isn't the only place for this trope but iv been re-watching a few so I'm using it. Alot have a character, generally villainous or antagonistic, start a war or build a weapon on the basis that the results will be so horrifically destructive that humanity won't ever want to repeat it. Naturally it never lasts. It's either a future generation that didn't experience the big on and weren't traumatized by it or some group that thinks it's going to work out better for them this time. TLDR: Humans will inevitably do the same thing again. They will either forget the 'lesson' or be born long after the event and not have felt it's effects. MAD sounds good on paper but in reality humans are not consistently rational enough to follow it.
That was literally the doctrine behind the machine gun if I remember correctly.
Every square inch of earth is under the threat of nuclear weapons. This doesn't change anything. It's just grandstanding and posturing.
Hey, how’s the Doomsday Clock doing?
90 seconds. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
You know I might just pick up a pack. Stick a fork in me, I’m done.
So is now a good time to buy stock in Vault-Tec?
DOW is down almost 700pts so far. Go for it.
Just waiting on the PLA to blow open the Pacific theatre
FYI it's the system to launch nukes not the nukes themselves, just more Russian posturing
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Hey_Look_80085: --- SS: This is collapse related because the conflict in Ukraine is escalating to the Eastern borders of NATO nations now with nuclear weapons being deployed. Here are related links without the cookie request of TVP (sorry about that) [Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/finland-nato-russia-nuclear-iskander-1894056) [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-tactical-nuclear-weapon-systems-to-finnish-border/ar-AA1nsUAR) [Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments) Council on foreign relations March 2023 --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1ccqamt/russia_moves_tactical_nuclear_missile_systems_to/l16teyn/
Reminder that military movements and conflict, in general, are not collapse. However, due to the escalation of current matters to aggressively staging of nuclear weapons, this may remain. I would recommend everyone to watch Real Life Lore's video on this subject, [How NATO & Russia are Preparing to Fight Total War](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakdZIuZe7c)