site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   4098 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 9, 2022

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Was there really a plan to nuke neutral countries in case of a full-on nuclear exchange between USSR and US?

Thanks. My concern is that, in a multipolar world where more and more countries nuclearize, and nuclear weapons get cheaper, every country gets the ability to nuke the world. Then, in a nuclear exchange between two countries, knowing they are doomed, they might strike ‘loose allies’ of the other out of spite (or even neutrals, “samson option”) , or to make sure they can’t be conquered by them afterwards. The loose allies in turn have to think about nuking them in case of a war they are not even a party to. If hit, they may retaliate in the same way, hitting other loose allies etc, and so in the end, even though there are no blocks, everybody nukes everybody.

There's always a plan. The US had a plan to invade Canada in 1930. The question is if it was the plan?

The answer is probably yes but we don't know. Some say that the declassified Warsaw Pact war plan of 1964 involves nuclear attacks on Sweden, but I can't find the original sources and confirm it. Even if the plan calls for such strikes, it's hard to know if this plan is the plan, but it seems like it. Then we can discuss if Sweden was truly neutral, or if it was an open secret that it was actually unofficially part of NATO. I would err on saying that Sweden was neutral.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats