It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
May 5, 2017 1:59 PM   Subscribe

With one miscalculation, by one startled pilot, at 400 miles an hour. And now that Russia is determined to destabilize the West, this scenario is keeping the military establishment up at night.
- This Is How The Next World War Starts
posted by the man of twists and turns (53 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
we'll be lucky to live through it.

Tradition says the lucky ones will be the ones who don't live through it.
posted by chavenet at 2:18 PM on May 5, 2017 [23 favorites]


But Trump and Putin are best buds... there's no way that could go bad... unless maybe the Vlad has realized that the Donald's standard operating procedure is to double-cross everyone who considers him a 'partner'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:34 PM on May 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


Together with this recent article, I've been thinking alot about this, and came to the conclusion that the internet will be one of the first things to get knocked off, so how will we even know to start panicking?
posted by growabrain at 2:36 PM on May 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


I don't know about you but I find that anytime my internet isn't working I already start panicking, so it should all work out.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:39 PM on May 5, 2017 [39 favorites]


No matter how often this happens—and lately, it has been happening a lot—these encounters always give Webster a jolt. For one thing, he and his crew can’t see the planes coming. Although his jet is carrying millions of dollars worth of the most sophisticated listening devices available to man, it lacks a simple radar to spot an incoming plane.

..WTF? I'm guessing that the plane is so focussed on signal detection etc that radar would be unwanted noise, but isn't their some other way to keep tabs on nearby aircraft?

Anyway, don't worry. Trump can handle it. It's gonna be yUUUge.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:42 PM on May 5, 2017


The minor double standards in this article, like all American foreign policy articles, was a bit distracting / annoying. Shortly after brushing over a US surveillance plane flying nearly 'directly over' Russian airspace, they are annoyed at Russians not filing flight plans for military aircraft. Did the US surveillance flight file a flight plan with the Russians? I'd hope so?

The Russians are pushing and seizing - Crimean and Syrian naval bases in particular - but this 'we are defending ourselves by deploying US troops next to Russia' would be more persuasive if the counter-perspective was acknowledged.
posted by anthill at 2:48 PM on May 5, 2017 [30 favorites]


Stop questioning US global hegemony, anthill. Didn't they tell you history is over?
posted by Jimbob at 3:10 PM on May 5, 2017 [8 favorites]


tfa is a little short-sighted about history and context. cf tu-95 vs f-4 throughout the 70s.

that sort of ongoing brinksmanship is part of the usaf mission as well.

i was a cold war kid at bentwaters afb, which scrambled out f-4s for intercept. those things are loud.

and wwiii begins with a dirty bomb that arrives in a us port in an uninspected shipping container...i am told.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:17 PM on May 5, 2017 [6 favorites]



The minor double standards in this article, like all American foreign policy articles, was a bit distracting / annoying. Shortly after brushing over a US surveillance plane flying nearly 'directly over' Russian airspace, they are annoyed at Russians not filing flight plans for military aircraft. Did the US surveillance flight file a flight plan with the Russians? I'd hope so?


Less than two years ago, I gave a presentation about pop culture and the Cold War, in which I kind of made fun of that Sting song that has the line about "the Russians love their children too" - so trite and dumb and hackneyed, etc. Watching the way mainstream liberal outlets write about Russia, now I feel like I understand why something like that got written.

I grasp that "neither Washington nor Moscow" is a difficult row to hoe - god knows I understand that better every week. At the same time, look, the United States is a powerful country and Putin is not Hitler. We should have a range of perfectly adequate options for Not Going To War, except that what we really want is not "what's best for everyone", it's "as much US hegemony as possible". I'm not saying that Putin's a swell fellow and if we all just sat down and had a beer, things would be great - Putin is a fucking piece of work. But this whole "Putin will push you until he forces you to refuse to do A Very Bad Thing and then he wins because he's a crafty ruthless superspy" line in the article - I mean, for fuck's sake. He's a bad guy, but he's not a supervillain.
posted by Frowner at 3:20 PM on May 5, 2017 [26 favorites]


...the internet will be one of the first things to get knocked off, so how will we even know to start panicking?

I think the sudden disappearance of the internet will be your first clue.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:22 PM on May 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


how will we even know to start panicking?

We live in Poland, in the first wave of atomic targets. If we're going to die all of a sudden, I'd rather we die peacefully sleeping, or building spaceships with blocks, weeding flowers, watching chickadees finally nesting in the bird house we built together.
posted by pracowity at 3:35 PM on May 5, 2017 [16 favorites]


...the internet will be one of the first things to get knocked off, so how will we even know to start panicking?

I think the sudden disappearance of the internet will be your first clue.


Sorry about starting that food riot, turns out my wifi was turned off. My bad.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 3:39 PM on May 5, 2017 [37 favorites]


"Stories That Stay With You" indeed! I've been busy all day, but once I started reading that article I couldn't stop. It's truly frightening, particularly the conclusion:

"To complicate matters further, the relentless pace of information in the social media age has destroyed the one precious factor that helped former leaders safely navigate perilous situations: time."

But what can we do to change this? As a Canadian, there's nothing I can personally do but hope our armed forces in Latvia never have to fight. (If they did it would be a short battle ending with obliteration.) But what can we as a civilization do when one of the biggest problems is a lack of time for reflection when something terrible happens? How do we build safeguards into the system when the existing ones are no longer being honored?

The biggest thing I got from this article is the necessity to look at things from the Russian point of view, and find face saving compromises for both sides that can avoid conflict. I'm used to being scared of Russia, or angry with them, but that's not the way to lasting peace. They're not going anywhere and neither are we, so we have to learn to live with each other again, even if no one alive can still remember the terrible consequences of world war. We can't let ignorance or fear make us reckless.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:53 PM on May 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


I was surprised by this bit:
In 2014, in response to Russia’s intervention in Crimea, Congress passed a law halting almost all military-to-military communications. Even the spontaneous and informal exchanges that used to occur among Russian and American officers have largely ended.
I tried to confirm this with some googling, but the only article I could find that looked relevant was from Breitbart, which I am not interested in clicking on.

Can anyone find evidence that this statement is true, and any background info about it?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:54 PM on May 5, 2017 [5 favorites]


I see your Hunt for Red October quote and raise you Tom Lehrer.
posted by Wretch729 at 3:55 PM on May 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


In 2014, in response to Russia’s intervention in Crimea, Congress passed a law halting almost all military-to-military communications.

I'm guessing they mean the National Defense Authorization Act (here is one summary) , but from what I can understand it was more about limiting cooperation, and the sharing of certain sensitive info, not general communication.
posted by Kabanos at 4:18 PM on May 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


It's MAD I tell you just MAD MAD MAD.

As utterly insane and terrifying as an (very likely) armed jet doing a barrel roll around another aircraft, I'm surprised that no one has sent up a chase plane to hang back and make a youtube video.
posted by sammyo at 4:21 PM on May 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Interesting perspective from the US ambassador to Russia in the 1987-91 here.
posted by BWA at 4:24 PM on May 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


and wwiii begins with a dirty bomb that arrives in a us port in an uninspected shipping container

Tell that to Brian "beauty of our weapons" Williams
posted by nubs at 4:24 PM on May 5, 2017 [5 favorites]


With these issues in mind, I traveled to Germany this winter to talk with U.S. Air Force General Tod D. Wolters, who commands American and NATO air operations. We sat in his headquarters at Ramstein Air Base, a gleaming, modern complex where officers in the uniforms of various NATO nations bustle efficiently through polished corridors. “The degree of hair-triggeredness is a concern,” said Wolters...

"... but I tell you, David, the real problem is that they're sapping our essence."
posted by Devonian at 4:26 PM on May 5, 2017 [9 favorites]


but this 'we are defending ourselves by deploying US troops next to Russia' would be more persuasive

My grandmother could persuade you, but she passed away. Her parents, carrying her, fled the Russian Revolution in 1919 to settle in Estonia (thank you, President Wilson!). My grandmother watched the Russians march into Estonia in 1939, and, from the relative safety of a bombed-out house, watched the Germans march in in 1940. She fled the Russians in 1945. The Russian government took the family house and gave it to Russian settlers.

Estonia belongs to NATO, presumably because Estonia values self-determination blah blah blah (boring and slightly sentimental, I know). This is not a question of "American hegemony".

I admit it's a competing version to the popular "Russian sphere of influence" narrative, though. That narrative is profoundly undemocratic. The glimpse into history provided by my grandmother has told me so.
posted by My Dad at 4:35 PM on May 5, 2017 [16 favorites]


Well, that was a relaxing way to wind down from a long work week on a quiet Friday evening.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:37 PM on May 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


I've been reliably informed that WWIII will start with ninety-nine red balloons floating in the summer sky.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:38 PM on May 5, 2017 [10 favorites]


I plan to start panicking when I see that impossibly bright white flash on the horizon. In all seriousness, though, I understand that a dirty bomb on a container ship is a much more likely scenario.

The thing about the nincompoop-in-chief that worries me, though, is that (probably) he has rarely, if ever, had to deal with the consequences of his actions. And we know what he and his ilk think about science, so it's plausible to me that he'd push the red button believing that nothing bad would happen to "us."
posted by scratch at 4:42 PM on May 5, 2017 [5 favorites]


has anyone else reread John Hersey's Hiroshima lately?
posted by scratch at 4:43 PM on May 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


nothing bad would happen to "us." I fear his notion of "us" is extremely narrow.
posted by Jode at 5:00 PM on May 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


My grandmother could persuade you, but she passed away.

Your grandmother could argue that American troops next to Russia are there to protect everyday Americans? Are you sure you didn't mean "my grandmother could persuade you that the troops are there for valuable goals that do not include protecting Americans"?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:17 PM on May 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


The thing is even the AI from like, early Civ games is smart enough to get all defensive and up in your face if you start parking your tanks on its borders.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:42 PM on May 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


So, which is the better soundtrack choice for this thread? "So Long Mom (A Song for World War III)" or "We Will All Go Together When We Go"?
posted by SansPoint at 6:02 PM on May 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


It is about 60 miles from my front doorstep to the nearest border crossing to Russia. That fact doesn't mean anything in itself, but I do find these US-centric stories a bit boring. We also hear the "it's normal that Russia will annex the Baltic states next" line from stalwart American Risk players pretty often. Including MeFi. Yawn.

I'm from Estonia. Hi, Mefi's own My Dad!
posted by Pyrogenesis at 6:06 PM on May 5, 2017 [12 favorites]


i was a cold war kid at bentwaters afb, which scrambled out f-4s for intercept. those things are loud.

[derail]

I really miss being a kid in the late 70s and early 80s when I could tell the F-4s from the 15s and 16s coming online just because turbojets sound different than turbofans. Also I miss going out on the balcony to watch 4-ships take off on afterburner.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:07 PM on May 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


From BWA's link

...Matlock, as ambassador, was adept at balancing American interests and American values without seeming “patronizing or offensive” in his dealings with Soviet officials. “What was also helpful is that he spoke good Russian. He gave interviews to Soviet newspapers and he could explain the American position in a very articulate manner on Soviet TV,

..sputter..sputter..but, now, really, WHY THE HELL is this not the base bare minimum for being an ambassador??? Can we just shoot all our selves (generals, congressfolk, bureaucrats) in the collective foot? Isn't it better to walk with a cane than be glowing radioactive embers??? </crazed rant>
posted by sammyo at 6:09 PM on May 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


I think it's more likely, now that the fields are dry and the rains have stopped, tne next war starts with Russian tanks rolling into the Ukraine. I mean, really, who's going to stop them?
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 6:32 PM on May 5, 2017


> So, which is the better soundtrack choice for this thread? "So Long Mom (A Song for World War III)" or "We Will All Go Together When We Go"?

How about some Sun Ra?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:48 PM on May 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


Maybe someone should start whispering in President Mango's ear that nuclear war is basically going to turn all of his wealth (assuming he even has a positive net worth), based as it is in real estate, into radioactive puddles of imported steel.
posted by maxwelton at 6:56 PM on May 5, 2017


I fear his notion of "us" is extremely narrow.

Me too, hence the scare quotes.
posted by scratch at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2017


He's a bad guy, but he's not a supervillain.

He doesn't have to be. Putin is making the calculation that the US (and NATO) will not be willing to start a hot war that could easily escalate to protect places like the Crimea from Russian takeover.

So far he's been right.

The danger comes when that gamble extends too far and he misjudges the snapping point of an adversary. And as the article notes, the longer you keep playing this roulette, the more chance an accident or mishap occurs.
posted by bitmage at 7:01 PM on May 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


But my point is that we are a big grown-up country and ought to use our brains such that we're like "yes this sucks, but a hot war would suck even more so we will not snap". There are a lot of tools in the US toolbox if we don't have "maintain as much hegemony as possible" as our prime objective. It's not like the way international stuff usually works is "I will invade everybody everywhere until stopped by force"; you use suasion, buy people off with stuff, write treaties, etc. It doesn't have to be "either be ready to nuke Moscow or accept that Russia is just going to annex everything up to the German border".
posted by Frowner at 7:10 PM on May 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


Putin is making the calculation that the US (and NATO) will not be willing to start a hot war that could easily escalate to protect places like the Crimea from Russian takeover.

As I said: internet geopoliticians whose knowledge comes from playing Risk. Or is it Europa Universalis nowadays?
posted by Pyrogenesis at 7:24 PM on May 5, 2017 [5 favorites]


we are a big grown-up country

Objection. I submit the last election and current behavior of the US government as evidence to the contrary.

What you're saying is definitely how things should go, but "the way international stuff usually works" has been out the window for a bit now. Everyone seems to be trying new (and crazy!) plans like breaking up the EU, defunding NATO, etc. And I'm highly skeptical that the current US leadership will use sober reflection before acting.

I have nightmares where Bannon is leaned in close to Trump, whispering "come on Don, you've got to do this. Do you want everyone to think you're weak?"
posted by bitmage at 7:29 PM on May 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


I'm curious, Pyrogenesis and anyone else from the region, can you give us some perspective on how you see things? I gather the "boring," US view isn't one you share. Do you disagree with the notion of the Russian strategy, or is their something else?
posted by Alensin at 8:50 PM on May 5, 2017


So, which is the better soundtrack choice for this thread?

We'll Meet Again
*:
Let's say goodbye with a smile, dear
Just for a while, dear, we must part
Don't let this parting upset you
I'll not forget you, sweetheart

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day

Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
'Till the blue skies chase
Those dark clouds far away

And I will just say hello
To the folks that you know
Tell them you won't be long
They'll be happy to know
That, as I saw you go
You were singing this song

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day

And I will just say hello
To the folks that you know
Tell them you won't be long
They'll be happy to know
That, as I saw you go
You were singing this song

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day
*Recorded by English actress and singer Vera Lynn in 1939: she recently turned 100.
posted by cenoxo at 11:54 PM on May 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


How about that time Nixon was falling down drunk and ordered a late-night nuclear strike on North Korea, but fortunately Kissinger had already put in place a failsafe workaround with NORAD or whoever along the lines of, "if the President ever phones you up out of the blue, slurring his sentences and asking you to nuke the hell out of someone, disregard it. That's just Dick being Dick and he'll feel differently about it in the morning."
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:43 AM on May 6, 2017 [4 favorites]


And reassuringly, Kissinger has praised Jared Kushner for "flying close to the sun."

Except in this case, the sun is a narcissist in charge of the world's most advanced military and nuclear arsenal, and it will hardly be just Icarus who melts vaporizes.
posted by invisible ink at 2:41 AM on May 6, 2017 [2 favorites]


Firstly, this sentence makes me question the accuracy of the article:
"Instead of closing in on the RC-135 at around 30 miles per hour and skulking off its wing for a while, a fighter jet will careen directly toward the American plane at 150 miles per hour or more before abruptly going nose-up to bleed off airspeed and avoid a collision."

Stall speeds for jets are complex and variable, but 30mph may be an impossibly low speed for a fighter; if it's possible for an SU-27 then it would be using some skillful flying, and not a 'normal intercept practice' thing (not to mention being slower than the RC-135's stall speed). I'm trying to parse it into something meaning the rate of closing the distance between the two aircraft, but I really can't. That's the sort of error that makes me concerned about the factual content of the rest of it.

Second: This. Is. Not. New.
Sorry, every so often this comes up as something breathtaking and new and terrifying and special, and it really isn't. Russian military planes buzzing towards UK airspace and having to be escorted off by fighters is business as usual. When I lived near an airbase in the early '00s it was an accepted fact of life that every so often there would be a fighter scramble to see them off.

Looking for some articles about this from a less US perspective (or just a more measured one), I found this local newspaper article which says that 5-10 of these happened a year between 2010 and 2016, which contains this quote:

A senior RAF source said defending UK airspace and the UK's area of interest within the Nato Policing Area, day in and day out, is “what you pay us for”.

“This is what we have been doing since the start of the Cold War - Russian long range aviation regularly flies into our area of responsibility, when they do we intercept and then escort them until they go home again.”


Lastly, both sides are doing the same thing! The article talks about big recon planes being buzzed by Russian fighters. Now look at this MoD picture accompanying a BBC article. The aircraft are almost certainly further apart than they appear in the picture, but that's the sort of close distance between a UK fighter jet and Russian plane that the MoD are chilled enough about to release an official picture about. You get up close and personal for these escort, and even without exciting manouvres there is the potential for catastrophic error. And there always has been.

If you were born after the start of the Cold War, you have lived with this threat of an intercept/escort going wrong and starting World War Three your whole life. Obviously, the more often each side tests the other's tolerance, the more often there is a chance for something going wrong, and the political context changes the liklihood of response. And if you actually read what the military brass in the article say, that's what really worries them - not that this is something that keeps them up at night, but that they are making an assessment of a known threat which has been present for an extremely long time but has recently escalated.
posted by Vortisaur at 3:39 AM on May 6, 2017 [5 favorites]


Stall speeds for jets are complex and variable, but 30mph may be an impossibly low speed for a fighter

They mean the closing speed, the difference in speeds between the Sukhoi and the RC-135, not the Sukhoi's airspeed.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:34 AM on May 6, 2017 [7 favorites]


and wwiii begins with a dirty bomb that arrives in a us port in an uninspected shipping container...i am told.

Other than a US port - what DID happen to the MV Iran Deyanat? Cuz that seems to have many of the elements of what you were told would be needed.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:08 AM on May 6, 2017


I've often wondered how many of the old Soviet ballistic missiles still actually work.

Obviously any would be bad, but I doubt Putin has as many functional as he'd like us to think.
posted by sotonohito at 8:10 AM on May 6, 2017


To end the world, he just needs a small percentage of them to find their targets.
posted by pracowity at 8:14 AM on May 6, 2017 [3 favorites]


We also hear the "it's normal that Russia will annex the Baltic states next" line from stalwart American Risk players pretty often.

Honestly, I have to wonder. If one traced that idea back far enough, back to where it originated from, would it originally be from a desk in Moscow?
posted by happyroach at 12:19 PM on May 6, 2017


I'm curious, Pyrogenesis and anyone else from the region, can you give us some perspective on how you see things?

Sorry, I was away. But anyway, I don't think I have the energy to do that, but I just meant that there's this tendency of seeing the "great powers" playing the world like on a chessboard, or like a game of Risk. The world is divided into neat little parcels like in the Paradox games, and then you move your pieces around. But now think of Syria. Why aren't these great powers doing all their supposed piece-moving, region-capturing power games which so many people tend to imagine that geopolitics is?
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:22 PM on May 7, 2017 [1 favorite]


By this time I'm talking to myself anyway, but let me put the point in another way. Here's one relatively recent mefi thread. The linked article is written by someone who actually knows Russia. Now read the mefi comments. How many of them are Americans talking about how Americans see Russia? Except for very few (e.g. languagehat) nobody actually knows anything about Russia, but equally many are certain that Americans talking to Americans about Russia is the number one true deal.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:30 PM on May 7, 2017


Facile analysis by the authors, sprinkled with some interesting facts and history.

Putin wants to protect Russia from a US Military Leadership that seeks a unipolar world with the USA at top. This is why China and Russia, not traditionally friends, are creating bilateral banking settlement systems and moving away from the dollar. US power is built primarily on the dollar and its reserve currency status.

GHWBush promised never to expand NATO into border countries, and then promptly did so. If Russia opened a base in Baja California in Mexico, the NeoCons and NeoLibs would scream for war, but we surround Russia and China with military bases.

Syria is all about limiting Russian naval power in the Mediterranean via the port at Tartus.
posted by NeoRothbardian at 3:16 PM on May 7, 2017


« Older The Big Bang Theory but with Ricky Gervais as the...   |   Better Fighting Through Sci-Fi Writing Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments