Russian Invasion - Salami Tactics | Yes Prime Minister

People like to imagine a big obvious threat that you respond to in kind, but what about a gradual creeping encroachment aka salami tactics? Classic scene from "Yes, Prime Minister": ▶ this video

in “How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry” · View on HN

Not if your red line is so far up your own bum hole you wont be able to see when someone reaches it Russian Invasion - Salami Tactics | Yes Prime Minister ▶ this video

in “Russia was behind arson attacks targeting the UK's Prime Minister, BBC reveals” · View on HN

The Soviets had a "no first strike" doctrine because they perceived themselves to be the stronger force on the continent. They had a huge standing army and massive numbers of armored vehicles and expected to be able to roll through the fudla gap and across western Europe as they had done through Eastern Europe in the final stages of WWII. NATO, on the other hand, expected to be overrun by the soviets and used the threat of nuclear counterattack to keep them from trying it. The Soviets built up their own nuclear deterrent to prevent NATO from responding with nukes (the MAD). If the US/NATO nuclear threat wasn't credible and the NATO armies were no match for the soviet army, then western Europe became a pawn for the soviets, leading the western allies to also invest in conventional arms. In short: the argument for the conventional forces was that the nuclear threat wasn't really credible because nobody would choose to end the world. ▶ this video

in “Declassified CIA Cartography Maps from the 1980s” · View on HN

Progess is generally salami slicing just as escalation in geopolitics. Not a step function. Russian Invasion - Salami Tactics | Yes Prime Minister ▶ this video

in “The next phase of the Microsoft OpenAI partnership – OpenAI” · View on HN

> Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy. I believe the EU would face a "fight or die" choice if the US tried it. Salami slicing, even for Greenland. Old British comedy, but same point: ▶ this video But not only the US. Simply failing to go straight to war in such a case would also tell the Russians that the EU's not a real threat. Were the EU to announce it was doing nothing, 10 minutes later Russian nukes would be in the air to Berlin, Paris, and London. It's not like the Russians would fear a response from the US at that point, given they were clearly no longer allies of NATO.

in “US trade deficit widens by the most in nearly 34 years in November” · View on HN

Can't resist posting this classic video from "yes minister" that discusses the "zeno's paradox" of MAD: ▶ this video (The general idea is that in a slowly escalating conflict may be no clear logical point where it makes sense to "push the button" first).

in “US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt” · View on HN