The logic of nuclear deterrence
Sadly, Dawkins should know better as he does have a rudimentary understanding of game theory — and yet…
Listen, I get it, the “new cold war” is the next big thing, we will all be discussing it soon enough. Some of the facts on the ground are lost in the fog of war, so Dawkins can be forgiven for missing the mark there. Other facts require some background knowledge of recent Ukrainian history and/or the geopolitical situation between Russia and NATO. I can forgive Dawkins for getting those facts wrong as he’s been in an echo chamber for a long time now. But nuclear deterrence? This should be like playing tee-ball.
There are two aspects of nuclear deterrence: the theoretical and the practical.
The theoretical aspect or the “why does nuclear deterrence work” is, apparently, what Dawkins imagines when he thinks about threat of nuclear war. Deterrence works because the actors involved are able to rank-order their preferences, and presumably, nobody ranks mutually assured destruction as their first choice. Theoretical musings are moot in terms of usefulness. If mutually assured destruction ranks #1 on someone’s list, then no deterrence is possible; thus, it is not a practical guide for creating deterrence, which is what we really care about.
Practically speaking, Dr. John Borrie puts it nicely when he defined deterrence as “seeking to induce caution in others by threats of pain”. Nuclear deterrence in real terms, then, is the product of capability and perception. Essentially, what a country trying to create deterrence is banking on is that the other side is rational enough not to use their nuclear weapons. In order to do so, the country trying to create deterrence has to create the perception in the minds of others that nuclear weapons will be used in a particular set of circumstances, which entails pretending to be just the right amount of crazy.
If Putin were to say he will never use nuclear weapons, and NATO takes him at his word, they might cross Russia’s comfort threshold, forcing Putin to make a choice on whether or not to use nuclear weapons. For this reason, pillow talk during a confrontation between nuclear powers is an insane stance. The reason leaders like Putin or Trump (see: fire and fury) establish terms of engagement with certainty is to prevent confusion in escalatory situations. In other words, Putin is clearly stating that he does not want to be forced by the west to make a choice that has dire ramifications. It’s called establishing deterrence.
Dawkins should feel secure, though. It is clear Putin is not insane. The west has already defacto declared war on Russia by openly providing Ukraine with weapons, intelligence, cyber interference, and sanctions. Considering Putin has not used nuclear weapons yet, we can be certain he is a rational actor. Instead, he is attempting to re-establish deterrence by drawing a line in the sand. At this point, anything that happens on the nuclear front will be due to lapses in the sanity of western leaders. Which, considering their actions in the previous two years, is a question that remains unresolved. Maybe Dawkins should tweet about that?
I or anyone else who had a few encounters with "tough guys" on dark streets, knows that it is beneficial to seem crazy and unpredictable in a situation where conflict can break out at any second.
It is a well known fact of nuclear strategy that appearing irrational and crazy may make the situation safer by making the other side avoid escalating.
I am pretty sure I avoided being beaten up or robbed a couple of times by acting contrary to the tough guys expectations, they just moved on to someone else.
What amazes me about the US is that, despite the massive suffering we have inflicted in our many military interventions for at least the last 20 years (I’m 39), we seem to think we are in a position of moral authority. Why? We did nothing to prevent this, and as far up as our VP openly antagonized Putin the day before the invasion.
I hate what Putin is doing, but I also hate people in the US cheering our government’s attempts to starve innocent Russians through sanctions and extra judicial property theft for not “rising up” against Putin. A couple hundred million adults allowed an entire generation of kids to be thrown in the garbage here for the last 2 years because of fear of social reprisal, which is less harmful than long jail sentences and death.
Last century 80 million people literally starved to death rather than “rise up” against tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, the list goes on. It doesn’t work, but our attempts might cause US dollar dominance to evaporate over the next couple of decades, and being 30 trillion in debt, it will be our kids starving.
Where do we get off cheering innocent human suffering then claiming “righteousness?” China and Russia didn’t starve and freeze us for blowing up Iraq over our made up “national security” misadventure. And we definitely didn’t give Iraq 25 years to negotiate…….
I am heartbroken by this war, but the data doesn’t match the narrative any better than it did with Covid so it’s also obvious there is lots of propaganda on all sides…….. My first instinct isn’t to make innocent humans “pay” because of the geography of their home.