Not a bad idea. I was thinking about getting back into the Lost Cause a bit and just writing about some parts of that period not often discussed. I am a big George Thomas fan, and he is criminally understudied. He is the best General in US history in my opinion, and nobody knows his name. And he was a full General- like he wiped the floor with Stonewall Jackson prior to the first battle of Bull Run.
As for which content I’d like to see, I’m fascinated by your debunking of historical myths and I also like your analysis of politics/ modern events. It often challenges me to see events from a new perspective I either hadn’t considered or that I disagreed with, which I feel has become harder to find in this algorithmic era.
Is there a way to get a transcript of the audio? I’m not able to listen as much as I can read.
Without having heard the audio I’d like to point out that your logic makes complete sense,
yet there’s no reason to be certain that hotheads angered by foreign invaders or, alternatively, those with testosterone driven desires for making a name for themselves in the annals of history, will think clearly. Like the passive aggressive who knows that an outburst won’t help, so after every outburst apologizes sincerely, but in the heat of the moment can’t see clearly.
I hope the cooler logic will prevail as you’ve laid out, but the emotional response might win out in this climate where we have more group think and mob rule than level headed checks and balances.
No but I had written it before. This is in regards to Russia but still has the some core thesis.
1: They aren’t very good weapons
Nuclear weapons are good at 1 thing- killing civilians and completely annihilating a nation to the point where the very land that nation inhabits is not but a wasteland- devoid of all life. As a weapon of war, they are utterly useless and outdated.
The first nuclear weapons were developed in the 1940s by the US. By the 1950s the USSR had developed nukes and the nuclear arms race took off.
At the time, nuclear weapons were fantastic weapons. A big problem in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam was the accuracy of bombs. If you wanted to bomb a factory you had to drop hundreds of bombs from hundreds of planes and blanket the entire area in the hopes that 1 would strike true. Then here comes the nuke- a bomb where you only need 1. If you want to destroy a fort, break a hole in the enemy’s line, or destroy a factory all you need is for 1 nuke to detonate within a few miles of the target. The strategic uses for such a weapon were boundless.
Things have changed though. Now we have smart bombs, big bombs, small bombs, bunker busters, supersonic missiles, and all sorts of tactical weapons. For warfare, these accurate weapons are far better than anything nuclear. They limit casualties, they limit destruction, and they offer a ton of flexibility. If you needed to hit a factory you could do so without destroying nearby homes. You could even target a specific part of the said factory and limit damage to the building while still limiting its usefulness.
If Putin drops a tactical nuke on Ukrainian troops what is it going to do? Sure it’ll kill a few Ukrainian soldiers but it’s not like that gap can be exploited. The entire area is irradiated so while it's off-limits to Ukrainian forces it’s also off-limits to Russian forces. The front would stay unchanged and that’s that.
If Putin nukes a city what will it do? It’s not like the Ukrainian people will go “oh well I guess we lost because _____ city is destroyed”. The Ukrainian Army would remain intact as would Ukrainian leadership. Nothing would change except that the Ukrainian people would be beyond livid and unable to ever forgive Putin.
Simply put there is nothing that a nuke can do that another weapon cannot do better.
Beyond that Russian equipment is terrible. Their ships, artillery, logistics, tanks- it all disappoints. So there is a good chance that many of the Russian nuclear weapons don’t work.
2: The drawbacks are insane
The only way nuclear bombs work is if you use lots of them. You need to nuke every city, not just 1. Nuking a single city changes nothing, nuking 2 cities changes nothing. All you do there is aggravate your enemy beyond imagination. You need to eradicate the entire enemy population or at least a ton of them to break their resolve.
What happens to Putin if he nukes 20 cities in Ukraine? How would the people of the world react to something that horrid? There would be no choice- NATO would get involved and either nuke Russia into the Stone Age or put troops on the ground and win the war.
But ok let’s assume Putin launches nukes. What are the drawbacks
It IMMEDIATELY draws the ire of NATO, the EU, the UN, and likely even China
It makes Putin this generation's version of Hitler. Suddenly people are willing to sacrifice whatever to see him brought down.
NATO will respond. Either they will use tactical nukes against Russian troops or conventionally enter the war and fight on the front with Ukrainian troops. Either way is a disaster for Russia
Ukrainians will be livid- more than they are now. Suddenly this is a war to the death and a grudge that everyone carries deeply.
Makes total sense. Thanks for the detailed response in text form. And I totally agree with you on the drawbacks, I just hope that calmer heads will be courageous and prevail when the hothead authorities are screaming “nuke ‘em or I’ll kill you” at them.
Thank you for asking for our opinions in this poll regarding content, Alex. You could even try "Debunking Historical Myths of Roman HIstory" (!)
Not a bad idea. I was thinking about getting back into the Lost Cause a bit and just writing about some parts of that period not often discussed. I am a big George Thomas fan, and he is criminally understudied. He is the best General in US history in my opinion, and nobody knows his name. And he was a full General- like he wiped the floor with Stonewall Jackson prior to the first battle of Bull Run.
As for which content I’d like to see, I’m fascinated by your debunking of historical myths and I also like your analysis of politics/ modern events. It often challenges me to see events from a new perspective I either hadn’t considered or that I disagreed with, which I feel has become harder to find in this algorithmic era.
Is there a way to get a transcript of the audio? I’m not able to listen as much as I can read.
Without having heard the audio I’d like to point out that your logic makes complete sense,
yet there’s no reason to be certain that hotheads angered by foreign invaders or, alternatively, those with testosterone driven desires for making a name for themselves in the annals of history, will think clearly. Like the passive aggressive who knows that an outburst won’t help, so after every outburst apologizes sincerely, but in the heat of the moment can’t see clearly.
I hope the cooler logic will prevail as you’ve laid out, but the emotional response might win out in this climate where we have more group think and mob rule than level headed checks and balances.
No but I had written it before. This is in regards to Russia but still has the some core thesis.
1: They aren’t very good weapons
Nuclear weapons are good at 1 thing- killing civilians and completely annihilating a nation to the point where the very land that nation inhabits is not but a wasteland- devoid of all life. As a weapon of war, they are utterly useless and outdated.
The first nuclear weapons were developed in the 1940s by the US. By the 1950s the USSR had developed nukes and the nuclear arms race took off.
At the time, nuclear weapons were fantastic weapons. A big problem in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam was the accuracy of bombs. If you wanted to bomb a factory you had to drop hundreds of bombs from hundreds of planes and blanket the entire area in the hopes that 1 would strike true. Then here comes the nuke- a bomb where you only need 1. If you want to destroy a fort, break a hole in the enemy’s line, or destroy a factory all you need is for 1 nuke to detonate within a few miles of the target. The strategic uses for such a weapon were boundless.
Things have changed though. Now we have smart bombs, big bombs, small bombs, bunker busters, supersonic missiles, and all sorts of tactical weapons. For warfare, these accurate weapons are far better than anything nuclear. They limit casualties, they limit destruction, and they offer a ton of flexibility. If you needed to hit a factory you could do so without destroying nearby homes. You could even target a specific part of the said factory and limit damage to the building while still limiting its usefulness.
If Putin drops a tactical nuke on Ukrainian troops what is it going to do? Sure it’ll kill a few Ukrainian soldiers but it’s not like that gap can be exploited. The entire area is irradiated so while it's off-limits to Ukrainian forces it’s also off-limits to Russian forces. The front would stay unchanged and that’s that.
If Putin nukes a city what will it do? It’s not like the Ukrainian people will go “oh well I guess we lost because _____ city is destroyed”. The Ukrainian Army would remain intact as would Ukrainian leadership. Nothing would change except that the Ukrainian people would be beyond livid and unable to ever forgive Putin.
Simply put there is nothing that a nuke can do that another weapon cannot do better.
Beyond that Russian equipment is terrible. Their ships, artillery, logistics, tanks- it all disappoints. So there is a good chance that many of the Russian nuclear weapons don’t work.
2: The drawbacks are insane
The only way nuclear bombs work is if you use lots of them. You need to nuke every city, not just 1. Nuking a single city changes nothing, nuking 2 cities changes nothing. All you do there is aggravate your enemy beyond imagination. You need to eradicate the entire enemy population or at least a ton of them to break their resolve.
What happens to Putin if he nukes 20 cities in Ukraine? How would the people of the world react to something that horrid? There would be no choice- NATO would get involved and either nuke Russia into the Stone Age or put troops on the ground and win the war.
But ok let’s assume Putin launches nukes. What are the drawbacks
It IMMEDIATELY draws the ire of NATO, the EU, the UN, and likely even China
It makes Putin this generation's version of Hitler. Suddenly people are willing to sacrifice whatever to see him brought down.
NATO will respond. Either they will use tactical nukes against Russian troops or conventionally enter the war and fight on the front with Ukrainian troops. Either way is a disaster for Russia
Ukrainians will be livid- more than they are now. Suddenly this is a war to the death and a grudge that everyone carries deeply.
Makes total sense. Thanks for the detailed response in text form. And I totally agree with you on the drawbacks, I just hope that calmer heads will be courageous and prevail when the hothead authorities are screaming “nuke ‘em or I’ll kill you” at them.