Post League Eridani

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Of course the SLN was more concerned ...

The major problem was that the SLN was NOT concerned, full stop.

They KNEW that they had more than parity and an insurmountable reserve. What possible reason could they have for concern?

I keep thinking of the the Russo-Japanese war, where pretty much every European nation had an observer who found themselves as an army commander in 1914-1915. And then proceeded to repeat every single mistake that they had observed in the Russo-Japanese war.

Reality doesn't have to be 'believable' or 'make sense'. People do amazingly dumb things that have enormous impact. Like say deciding to appoint this crank to a senior position because it will make him stop advocating radical positions when he's part of the the government. You might ask Kurt von Schleicher how that plan worked out.

GloriousRuse wrote:The fun part is that, real world, the idea of small nuclear exchanges is coming back in vogue. Not terribly related to EEVs on account of even one stray missile can do as much to a planet as the entire US-Soviet arsenals...

But the rebirth of “tactical” nukes is well underway. The Russians for instance rather openly state that in a limited war over their near abroad (we tend to think of them as the nations bordering Russia) they would likely use a few smaller warheads to evaporate a US-NATO response and thereby bring everyone to the negotiating table. The Gerasimov Doctrine. (For the more historically minded, it is based on a lot of the same IR theory as Flexible Response was for us, but with much more attention to the early escalation rungs)

I guess it does raise the question of “what level of EEV would be acceptable before sides resorted to MAD”?

KEWing capitals may become the new chalk mark on the fortress wall.

Is this new chalk mark ironically made by the KEWs of the SLN? What a can-o-worms you've opened my dear.

Would such a reprisal by the Russians seat the negotiating table? Or would it set off similar reprisals, born out of the shock, anger and disgust of the world? The world didn't really know the carnage a nuke would cause until post 1945. Most didn't really know the A-bomb would even work. Now that the US has opened that can of worms, the world has said, "NO!"

Imagine waking up to these Headlines:

THE WORLD IS IN A STATE OF SHOCK!

THE RUSSIANS HAVE JUST NUKED X!

NO MORE X ONLY 25 LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET!

Is man ultimately suicidal? I think this thread is heading headlong into that Almighty that derails threads so I've refrained from being the one to throw the switch. Certainly in the Honorverse, IF NOT TRUE that it is in God's hands, man is in deep shi—

Well, that really is the question. The Russians in recent years have posed the use of tactical warheads as a method of escalation control to freeze the conflict if someone who has the conventional edge wants in.

Basically, they’ve decided that whoever can keep the intensity of a conflict at the desired level will will win. Their problem is that the west has a large (shrinking, but large) conventional forces edge.

“At all costs, keep the western armies out; we might be able to handle a division and a half with our new things, but if the West masses, we lose. So how do we do that?”

On one side, you have the little green men and public opinion manipulation/confusion. When those go active, you support them with your overmatching conventional arms. Hopefully you achieve your operational objectives quickly enough and with enough confusion that in a few weeks it’s a fait accompli.

Then you sit down for peace talks before the west can smash you. Knowing that in reality, while you’d lose, you would hurt the Americans badly enough that they really don’t want a fight.

And then if you misjudge it and the west comes anyhow...you pick a nice military target or two. Nuke them away. Besides hurting, it EXACTLY becomes everyone’s headline. It says “the Russians are F$@)ing Serious. And since they still have thousands of strategic warheads, do we want to go all in, or maybe just nuke one if their divisions and then get everyone to the negotiating table enforce we end the world?

That is, more or less, the theory (it’s not actually a unified theory, but the theory none the less) that Russian decision is based on.

GloriusRuse wrote:KEWing capitals may become the new chalk mark on the fortress wall.

You know, this post reminds us that most of the grossly important appendages of governments live in their nations' capitol - putting all eggs in one basket. It doesn't have to be that way in the Honorverse with the quickness of aircars. It would remove many of the eggs out of the basket of destruction.

I really think the MA will have a leg up on EE violations with their game changing tech. It will be like Harrington specifically targeting only the enemy commander at the center of formations.

For the MAlign, it will be like pushing baby chicks into the projected CSAPPS envelope.

GloriousRuse wrote:Well, that really is the question. The Russians in recent years have posed the use of tactical warheads as a method of escalation control to freeze the conflict if someone who has the conventional edge wants in.

Basically, they’ve decided that whoever can keep the intensity of a conflict at the desired level will will win. Their problem is that the west has a large (shrinking, but large) conventional forces edge.

“At all costs, keep the western armies out; we might be able to handle a division and a half with our new things, but if the West masses, we lose. So how do we do that?”

On one side, you have the little green men and public opinion manipulation/confusion. When those go active, you support them with your overmatching conventional arms. Hopefully you achieve your operational objectives quickly enough and with enough confusion that in a few weeks it’s a fait accompli.

Then you sit down for peace talks before the west can smash you. Knowing that in reality, while you’d lose, you would hurt the Americans badly enough that they really don’t want a fight.

And then if you misjudge it and the west comes anyhow...you pick a nice military target or two. Nuke them away. Besides hurting, it EXACTLY becomes everyone’s headline. It says “the Russians are F$@)ing Serious. And since they still have thousands of strategic warheads, do we want to go all in, or maybe just nuke one if their divisions and then get everyone to the negotiating table enforce we end the world?

That is, more or less, the theory (it’s not actually a unified theory, but the theory none the less) that Russian decision is based on.

We have an interesting inversion of the Cold War era paradigm of the USSR /Warswaw Pact having an overwhelming advantage in conventional forces. Not even a NATO fully reinforced by the United States was believed capable of wining a conventional war in Europe, hence the nuclear umbrella. Since it didn't seem credible that the US was really willing to sacrifice NYC and Washington DC to save Berlin, the US deployed tactical nuclear weapons that could more plausibly target Soviet forces in Europe without quite threatening Russian home territory. None of the tactical nukes excepting the Neutron Bomb had any real capabilities that could not be performed almost as well by strategic weapons systems.

What is truly interesting is that some factions in the US and Europe are determined to be an existential threat to Russia that might provoke Russia into going nuclear. Governor Palin gave a great speach years ago in which she advocated vigilence against Russia invading neutral Ukraine. I do not think that she imagined that the US would ever be stupid enough to incite a coup in a neutral Ukraine to install a racist, xenophobic leader who would not only have Ukraine join the EU and NATO but engage in ethnic cleansing to persecute the Russian speaking and descended majorities of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. This is somewhat like a foreign power attempting to incite a seperatist movement in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas or the Louisiana purchase.

Of course people ignore the reality that while Russia is aligning itself with China (providing military technology because China's much larger population and economy can offset the United State's larger population and economy) much of Russia's rationale for tactical nuclear weapons and INF weapons are intended to deter China from seizing the resources of Siberia as well as deterring India.

The Eridani edict is fine and dandy but the best strategy to prevent EE violations isnot not become an existential threat to your neighbors that would provoke an EE violation. I am amazed that none of the systems targeted by the PRH for conquest did not attempt an EE response. Perhaps the Battleships that the PSN maintained were a neccessary defense? The SLN certainly invited EE attacks against the SL's 1,000+, virtually defenseless systems. However; OFS was content to target systems that were to backward to even own a freighter.

Going forward after UH, wars of conflict and exploitation are going to be riskier.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:What is truly interesting is that some factions in the US and Europe are determined to be an existential threat to Russia that might provoke Russia into going nuclear. Governor Palin gave a great speach years ago in which she advocated vigilence against Russia invading neutral Ukraine. I do not think that she imagined that the US would ever be stupid enough to incite a coup in a neutral Ukraine to install a racist, xenophobic leader who would not only have Ukraine join the EU and NATO but engage in ethnic cleansing to persecute the Russian speaking and descended majorities of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. This is somewhat like a foreign power attempting to incite a seperatist movement in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas or the Louisiana purchase.

No, because the Ukraine is not part of Russia; otherwise why would Palin argue for vigilance against Russian incursion? Which is exactly why the Ukraine wanted to join NATO, because being neutral is no protection (unless you are Finland, which lacks a warm water port). It is NOT irrational "xenophobia" for the Ukrainians to fear the Russians, because they have very good reasons to be wary.

In a more diffuse sense that is what the Russian troll farms are doing when encouraging social discord in the US.

tlb wrote:It is NOT irrational "xenophobia" for the Ukrainians to fear the Russians, because they have very good reasons to be wary.

Ohm don't be ridiculous. The US under Bill Clinton (along with Russian and the UK) made solemn promises, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to the Ukraine that if they surrendered their nuclear weapons that the US and UK would protect them against attacks.

As the US always lives up to its word in international affairs why would the Ukraine feel threatened by the Russians?

Not a mod, but … shouldn't discussions of present-day real-world politics be in, y'know, the Politics sub-forum of Off-Topic, not in "Honorverse"?

drothgery wrote:Not a mod, but … shouldn't discussions of present-day real-world politics be in, y'know, the Politics sub-forum of Off-Topic, not in "Honorverse"?

I should be more careful.
I was just using the real world example to make the point that the invincible SLN guarenteeing enforcement of the EE made the Honorverse a safe place to wage wars of conquest and subject backwards systems to exploitation. Now that the SLN is no longer the 800# galactic gorilla and has been revealed as a perpetrator of EE violations which destroys its moral authority, systems that are threatened with conquest will seriously consider launching quick, devastating strikes against their would be conquerors. Post UH is a good time for everyone to stay home, develop their own economy using the wondrous gravitic and impeller drive technologies that make resources cheap and abundant, reform their political, economic and educational systems so that your people can produce what they need rather than steal from their neighbors, deploy robust defenses but avoid engaging in military adventures thatnwill just piss people off.