Russia suggests next targets could be three US states and two NATO countries

[Moksha]

Now? Zero. If the US goes through a balkanization phase? Depends on how the lines are laid down. They already own the GOP, so it’s a non-zero chance.
Whatevs.

- Doc

Trump is such a scourge!

[honorentheos]

But my main (nay, only) goal was to obtain an answer to my question, since the OP believes it’s a likely occurrence.

Sounds on brand.

[honorentheos]

Two words for Shades: Paul Wolfowitz.

You're overly optimistic.

#thosewhoknowknow

[Gunnar]

I both understand and acknowledge what you’re trying to say. It isn’t rocket science by any means. But my main (nay, only) goal was to obtain an answer to my question, since the OP believes it’s a likely occurrence.

I have already admitted to you it's a very unlikely occurrence. The best way to insure that it stays that way, and only becomes increasingly unlikely is to expose and unrelentingly oppose those who are demented enough to aspire to somehow implement it.

[Moksha]

The possibility of an upcoming Sino-American war caused the United States to accelerate the development of the Forced Evolutionary Virus (FEV) and Power Armor. The T-45 Power Armor was first used in the Battle of Anchorage.

(See Fallout Documentary on the Amazon Prime Channel)

[Dr. Shades]

The possibility of an upcoming Sino-American war caused the United States to accelerate the development of the Forced Evolutionary Virus (FEV) and Power Armor. The T-45 Power Armor was first used in the Battle of Anchorage.

(See Fallout Documentary on the Amazon Prime Channel)

Was that funny?

[Gadianton]

I caught up a bit yesterday on what Internet people are saying about the war. Looking for commonality between supreme devil's advocate, John Mearsheimer, and everyone else, I've come to believe that Russia should attack a random NATO country ASAP. Preferably, not the easiest geographical target, but one that is minimally armed, if that's possible.

With American support being dicey, and with tremendous gaps in support in general and Europe weak in war production, while Russia is fully a wartime economy cranking out junk machines that absorb a lot of bullets and with a 10-20x tolerance for their own loss of life vs what's acceptable to a normal developed nation, it could destabilize NATO very quickly by attacking it now while escalating threats of nuclear annihilation if anybody responds.

The idea would be to flip the script from "everyone give a little to Ukraine" to "holy crap! we've got to save our ammo for ourselves!"

Clearly, the model where Ukraine is the front line of a proxy war with Russian, and everyone contributes everything they can is the best way to leverage resources and burn Russia out. So why can't we realize the obvious?

Because national defense and by extension, international defense is the poster child free rider problem.

One of the best examples of a public good is national defense. To the extent one person in a geographic area is defended from foreign attack or invasion, other people in that same area are likely defended also. This makes it hard to charge people for defense, which means that defense faces the classic free-rider problem. Indeed, almost all economists are convinced that the only way to provide a sufficient level of defense is to have government do it and fund defense with taxes.

It's going to be as difficult to get every NATO country to pay their fair share as it is to convince the typical park-goer to take their own trash out of the park. In fact, the way that NATO probably has worked so far is by a delicate balance of factors. It's quite possible that America has traditionally been okay with handling the trash on its own, in exchange for unilaterally laying down the rules for the park otherwise. In other words, that Europe isn't paying their fair share is part of the tacit agreement. When an unschooled, Adderall-ridden diaper pooper comes unglued that Europe isn't paying their dues in terms of NATO, and so it should be disbanded, while there might be a ring of truth to the accusation, it may require a deeper understanding before jumping to conclusions about what the other nations should be doing.

On the one hand, there is a coordination problem that leads to free-riders. But there are other coordination issues when there are five sheriffs in town. The more military power each neighboring nation has, the greater the potential risk is to each other, the more say powerful nations have at the table, and overall the more difficult the coordination effort to pool the resources for the common good.

I hate to abuse the terminology, but the paradigm shift Putin should look for is the shift where each European country suddenly sees itself vulnerable and left to defend itself rather than as contributors to the common effort at the front lines that yields common protection to everyone. For starters, that shift means that money spent will be as inefficiently used as possible. An extreme example: what if every American household spent their money on their own weapons to protect their house rather than in taxes for cops and nuclear arms?

That's not without its risks, it just might be that the coordination does work out, and that it stimulates arms production and the net effect is still greater than otherwise, but I would say if Trump wins, it's almost certainly worth it for Russia to try it. That doesn't mean he's going to conquer all of Europe, but maximize inefficiencies of resources when left on their own, and maximize gains in Ukraine.

[Moksha]

The possibility of an upcoming Sino-American war caused the United States to accelerate the development of the Forced Evolutionary Virus (FEV) and Power Armor. The T-45 Power Armor was first used in the Battle of Anchorage.

(See Fallout Documentary on the Amazon Prime Channel)

Was that funny?

Watch the TV show.

[honorentheos]

The possibility of an upcoming Sino-American war caused the United States to accelerate the development of the Forced Evolutionary Virus (FEV) and Power Armor. The T-45 Power Armor was first used in the Battle of Anchorage.

(See Fallout Documentary on the Amazon Prime Channel)

Was that funny?

Comedy being subjective, was the question necessary to ask? You can answer for yourself. And even if you disagree with what others think, their answers will inevitably differ from yours. The question as framed is not even wrong.

[Dr. Shades]

Was that funny?

Watch the TV show.

Wait, so "Fallout Documentary on the Amazon Prime Channel" isn't something you just made up? It actually exists?