Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
I don't have such deep military understanding as Captain Crunch, but still global range missiles are easier to intercept and fly for much longer (i.e. like 20 minutes). While you are right about distance mattering less, it still matters.
|
Yes, the theory is that launching your missiles from closer gives you a higher chance to obliterate your enemies before they can respond, which means there's not mutually assured destruction as a deterrent any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Shorter range and response time. Moscow is 600 km from Ukraine, far closer than any open water or NATO state
|
Latvia is a NATO member and is also 600 km away, the Baltic Sea is 650 km, the Barents Sea is 900 km. We aren't talking orders of magnitude of difference. I don't see Ukraine having particular strategic importance in a nuclear scenario. In fact, the only thing that I think would matter is a defense system with extreme technological superiority over offensive systems, and I do not believe that exists.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pointman
Which is why the only way out of it is to gain some more trust. Which can only be gained by honouring agreements and improving understanding of each other.
|
I think the fundamental conflict that will be difficult to resolve pertains to human rights. The West (ostensibly, at least) believes in rights for minorities, democracy, and that it has a responsibility to advance these rights for all people, no matter where they may be. That presents an existential threat to the Russian autocrats. Even while the threat can be mitigated through power or the pragmatism of deal-making, the underlying conflict remains unresolved. I don't think the West can or should compromise on these values, so the path to truly set the Cold War behind us lies in further Russian progress on these files.