Commentary by writer Ilya Kramnik
[Telegra.ph] A few statements:
a) People want and love to live.
B) Nuclear war is possible.
C) It may or may not have a winner.
D) An exchange of massive counter-value nuclear strikes "for all the money", after which there really will be no winners - one of the forms of nuclear war, the last one, and about as likely as a world war using conventional weapons.
What does the above mean? The fact that, as in a conventional war, a variety of options for multi-stage controlled escalation are possible in a nuclear war. An escalation that began with a warning about the increased readiness of nuclear forces may end at this stage, may move to a demonstrative preparation for use, may branch off into a resumption of testing, and so on. Further, demonstrative use may take place in a desert area, further the exchange of secondary military facilities/deployed formations, again, in a quieter area.
At some stage, the situation may be on the verge of using strategic nuclear forces, and here the aerobatics of controlled escalation already begins - for example, the parties may begin to demolish each other cities/regions one at a time, so to speak, to reinforce the negotiating position. Where will these cities and regions be? It depends, but within the framework of a controlled escalation, various agreements are possible, public and not very clear, on limiting the area of combat operations, both in general and nuclear ones - separately.
Can it come to the removal of cities in the indigenous territories of each other? Maybe, and it's not at all a fact that everyone at once, according to the principle of “sprinkling it with chalk,” will begin as part of a controlled escalation, most likely from “signal cities”, the removal of which should demonstrate the seriousness of intentions and readiness to defend, uh, a negotiating position and/or to convince the opponent of the need to move on some elements of the bargain.
Here they will surely cry out to me - what about the Second World War? No bargaining, only the unconditional surrender of the adversary and his complete annihilation. The problem of the Second World War is precisely that the main thing was missing in this war - the possibility of mutually assured destruction, therefore, in January 1943, when the demand for unconditional surrender was put forward , the Germans had nothing to object to it .
In the event that parties converge in a war, equally capable of bringing each other down to the Stone Age, bargaining for the best positions in the process is inevitable. In general, all this flourishing multi-stage with branches, recreation areas, signs "fuck it - it's there" and "dangerous for life," was invented on the basis of the above paragraph "A." People want and love to live, and therefore they even engage in suicidal things according to the principle "it's better, of course, to suffer."
Is it possible that in the end all this will still be passed without stopping and will still come out for an exchange of large-scale strategic strikes on cities? Or will it even begin with an attempted disarming / decapitating massive strike?
Of course it's possible. But since people love and want to live, and an attempt at a disarming strike most likely leads to a reciprocal "for all the money," then the sides will slowly walk up the stairs to hell, warningly letting each other go forward and leaving crosses with chalk to return back.
... It's a pity in this situation, in fact, Eastern Europe. When Germany was appointed to the role of the battlefield of the 3rd World War, no one was sorry, everyone knew why and for what. And then the people themselves climbed, voluntarily, with a song, and a deep faith in the end of history. Ave, Caesar, Morituri te salutant, whatever.
those who are about to die salute you
@Armscontrolfreak, for whom the above is a direct subject of study, adds two buts: 1. There are fundamental doubts about the possibility of controlled escalation. 2. No one knows if it is manageable at all after a certain threshold.
… And this ignorance is the best guarantee against the beginning of the bangs and, in general, a direct clash of the parties. The ghost of 1914 hangs in front of everyone, swaying measuredly in the void, and the fact that now it is also nuclear does not ozonize the atmosphere.
And you don't care, everyone has to work tomorrow. me too.