Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Mar 5, 2022 35 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Let's discuss how this war is going. I'll start with a somewhat counterintuitive problem - the one of nuclear deterrence. Its dynamics are so paradoxical from the standpoint of game theory that they greatly stimulated development of the conflict economics in the 1960s🧵 Image
Both the US and the USSR were able to inflict irreversible damage on each other. But there was a problem - human factor. Would you *actually* give an order to launch the nukes? If you wouldn't or nobody believes you would, it greatly reduces your power to pressure and blackmail Image
And vice versa. Consider that your opponent did make a strike with devastating effect for your country. But he didn't wipe out your nuclear forces completely: some of them survived the attack. Will they strike back? Pragmatically speaking, it's not in their best interest Image
After you nuked your enemy, best thing his nuclear forces can do, pragmatically speaking, is bargain. Negotiate some reasonable terms of surrender for themselves. Their country is (largely) gone anyway. If they strike back, humanity is doomed and they're doomed too. They know it Image
Paradoxically, the devastating effect of nuclear strikes leads to very counterintuitive dynamics. Yes, actors will be hesitant to make a strike. But if they did it anyway, then whatever remained of their opponents may be reluctant to strike back. That's not in their best interest Image
Human factor obstructs actually employing the nukes not only as the offensive, but also as a defensive weapon. If I believe that whatever remains of my opponent after my strike might not strike back (they'd rather bargain) than the entire nuclear deterrence mechanism doesn't work Image
Counterintuitive problems require counterintuitive solutions. So Khruchev told:

"Your generals talk of maintaining your position in Berlin with force. That is a bluff. If you send in tanks, we'll burn them. If you want a war, you'll get it. Our rockets will FLY AUTOMATICALLY" Image
What did he mean? Well, that's clear. The USSR was stronger conventional weapon-wise, US - nuke-wise. Ofc the USSR wanted to solve any conflicts by conventional weapons, but was concerned about American nukes. Khruchev knew that human factor largely devaluates nuclear deterrence Image
Soviets found a counterintuitive solution to this problem. Which is - *limit their own choices*. Like, yeah, we surely would like to avoid the nuclear apocalypse. Sadly, we won't have such an option. If you nuke us, our rockets will fly automatically with no human factor involved Image
Counterintuitively it may sound, limiting your own options was a great move from the standpoint of game theory. Convey the message that if your enemy makes a strike, you'll literally have no choice but to inflict total mutual destruction. That's what makes nuclear deterrence work Image
Cultures of honour work *exactly* by limiting one's own options. Like, sorry guys but if you kill one of ours we'll wage a blood feud and hunt every single one of you. Yeah, that's irrational. Yeah, many more of ours will die as a result. Sadly, we won't have a choice to back off Image
It may seem that the best strategy is to ensure you always have choices. BUT. If you have them and your opponent knows that, you're defenceless. No deterrence will ever work. For deterrence to work, they need to know you'll 100% strike back. That's why you limit your own options Image
Alternatively, you may bluff and make your opponent *believe* that you have limited your options. Which is exactly what Khruchev did. All his talk of rockets that will "fly automatically" was BS. He was playing with Americans and bluffing so that his nuclear deterrence would work Image
No Soviets rockets would ever "fly automatically". There was indeed an automatic system informing the military of a supposed American nuclear strike. That was true. But there was no automatic system that would actually make a strike with no human factor involved. It never existed Image
Decision to launch Soviet rockets could be made only by mid-ranked humans made of flesh and blood. It was all based on human factor. Which is exactly why the nuclear war never happened. The humans wouldn't press the button no matter what the automatic systems told them to do Image
The first case where situation could've potentially escalated happened in 1962 during the Caribbean crisis. Soviet submarine Б-59 broke the quarantine which Kennedy imposed around Cuba. Americans didn't know this submarine has nukes and started bombing it with depth-charges Image
The submarine had to dive deeper where no radio connection was possible. Its lost any communications with Moscow and with the High Command. Meanwhile, Americans continued dropping depth bombs on a submarine. So captain Savitsky ordered to prepare the nuclear torpedoes for launch Image
Btw Soviet submarines employed not only the nuclear rockets but also the torpedoes. They were still pretty powerful and as you see could inflict a heavy damage Image
What happened next? Savitsky was stopped. Who did it? His own politruk and the chief of staff of the submarine brigade who just *accidentally* happened to be there. A hothead captain wanted to make a nuclear attack but it was vetoed both by his military and political superiors Image
FYI: in Soviet army politruks were not professional military but the political appointees commissioned to the army in order to check, control and veto decisions of the military. Politruk doesn't so much help a captain as to ensure there are no fluctuations from the Party line Image
Both military and political higher-ups vetoed the strike. Ofc info was classified till 2002. And even then it was presented as their personal decision. But if they had a clear order not to make a strike, would it be published? No. That would devalue the entire nuclear deterrence Image
Another escalation that we know of happened in 1983. On September 1 a Soviet fighter shot down a Korean Boeing, taking it for a spy plane. 269 people died. NATO scheduled exercises for the nuclear war Able Archer 83 on November of that year. Tension grew rapidly Image
What is worse, Soviets knew that Americans will employ their new missiles Pershing II in Western Europe. This rockets could reach Moscow in just six minutes, leaving very little time for figuring out what's happening, making a decision and striking back. One had to decide quickly Image
To detect American strikes, USSR employed the Oko satellite system. Satellites were based both on Molniya (= to detect a launch from high latitudes, see below) and geosynchronous orbits. They'd detect exhaust plume of rocket launch in infrared light and notify the Soviet military Image
On 26nd of September 1983, a command station Serpukhov-15 located near Moscow got a notification that Americans made a strike. According to the official narrative, colonel-lieutenant Petrov, an engineer-analytic of the station had to report to the General Secretary immediately Image
But he didn't do that. Instead he informed his superiors of a false alarm. It's understandable. He was a professional engineer and knew that a computer absolutely can make a mistake. Besides he concluded that the notification of just several rockets launched is likely to be false Image
If Americans did attack, launching several rockets would be stupid. They should have made a mass strike. So Petrov decided that the alarm is false. Indeed, the system mistook the sun rays reflection from the high altitude clouds for a rocket launch. They fixed this bug much later Image
What do these two stories (that we know of) teach us? The entire narrative of rockets that would "fly automatically" is a myth. It's a bluff aimed to maximise the nuclear deterrence effect. No sane commandment would ever do this considering how unreliable these systems are Image
Decisions are taken by humans and not even by high-ranked humans. Those higher-ups have no idea how to even interpret data, and have to rely on explanations (=interpretations) of engineers. Some fancy general/minister has no better info than the one his technical staff gave him Image
Furthermore, there is a reason to believe that several independent mechanisms prevent some hothead from just launching rockets because he feels like that. That would explain why in 1962 decision to launch torpedoes was blocked both by military and political higher-ups Image
I don't have any hard evidence to support this hypothesis but logically speaking that would make total sense. A military supervisor got a secret instruction to prevent a launch, and a political got one too independently. Double control just to make sure no accident gonna happen Image
That would also make sense from a game theory standpoint. Technically the best scenario ever is when you actually have options, but pretend you don't. You claim you limited your choices, excluding the human factor, but in reality you don't do that Image
Technically speaking deterrence isn't based on having actually limited your choices but on making them believe you have. The thing is, with conventional weapons you can't just bluff for long without actually using them. Very soon nobody's gonna believe you anymore
Nuclear deterrence is a bit different. Since the nukes are universally regarded as a domesday device and a full-scale nuclear war will mark the end of humanity, it's totally possible to pretend to have limited your choices, but to keep them in reality. Nobody had a chance to try
I think, I'm done for today. Next time I want to make a brief overview of how this war is going. If you want to support my work, you can sign up to my Patreon patreon.com/kamilkazani922

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

Jul 1
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:

“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry

(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)

So, yes, living under the actual communism sucks
Read 5 tweets
Jun 28
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani’s victory

Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc

Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one Image
1. Public outrage does not work anymore

If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while

For a while, this tactics worked

Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
Read 8 tweets
Jun 28
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
Theory: X -> Y

Reality:

There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.

Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation

And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
Read 6 tweets
Jun 26
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani's victory:

1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.

In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings

Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
Read 12 tweets
Jun 21
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.Image
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain

According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her Image
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.

Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 19
On the impending war with Iran

One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg

And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(