<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: If “brinkmanship” means anything, it means manipulating the shared risk of war</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2026/02/if-brinkmanship-means-anything-it-means-manipulating-the-shared-risk-of-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2026/02/if-brinkmanship-means-anything-it-means-manipulating-the-shared-risk-of-war/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 12:34:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: T. Beholder</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2026/02/if-brinkmanship-means-anything-it-means-manipulating-the-shared-risk-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3761830</link>
		<dc:creator>T. Beholder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2026 19:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.isegoria.net/?p=53859#comment-3761830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt; But if war tends to result from a process, a dynamic process in which both sides get more and more deeply involved
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

At which point it matters whether at least one side sees the whole “nuclear escalation” idea as simply nonsensical.

&lt;blockquote&gt;For decades, Western military theorists have unanimously asserted that any nuclear war would begin with a first stage during which only conventional weapons would be used. Then, after a certain period, each side would begin, uncertainly and irresolutely at first, to use nuclear weapons of the lowest calibre. Gradually, larger and larger nuclear weapons would be brought into action. These theorists hold varying views on the period which this escalation would take, ranging from a few weeks to several months. 

 Being unopposed, this theory was to be found in the pages of both serious studies and light novels — the latter being fantasies with happy endings, in which a nuclear war was brought to a halt in such a way that it could never recur. 

 The theory that a nuclear war would take a long time to build up originated in the West at the beginning of the nuclear age. It is incomprehensible and absurd, and it completely mystifies Soviet marshals. For a long time there was a secret debate at the highest levels of the Soviet government — have the Western politicians and generals gone off their heads or are they bluffing? It was concluded that, of course, no one really believed in the theory but that it had been thought up in order to hide what Western policy-makers really believed about the subject. But then the question arose: for whose benefit could such an unconvincing and, to put it mildly, such a silly idea have been dreamed up? Presumably not for that of the Soviet leadership. The theory is too naive for specialists to believe. That must mean that it was devised for the ignorant and for the popular masses in the West, to reassure the man in the street. 
— Viktor Suvorov. Inside the Soviet Army 
&lt;/blockquote&gt; etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p> But if war tends to result from a process, a dynamic process in which both sides get more and more deeply involved
</p></blockquote>
<p>At which point it matters whether at least one side sees the whole “nuclear escalation” idea as simply nonsensical.</p>
<blockquote><p>For decades, Western military theorists have unanimously asserted that any nuclear war would begin with a first stage during which only conventional weapons would be used. Then, after a certain period, each side would begin, uncertainly and irresolutely at first, to use nuclear weapons of the lowest calibre. Gradually, larger and larger nuclear weapons would be brought into action. These theorists hold varying views on the period which this escalation would take, ranging from a few weeks to several months. </p>
<p> Being unopposed, this theory was to be found in the pages of both serious studies and light novels — the latter being fantasies with happy endings, in which a nuclear war was brought to a halt in such a way that it could never recur. </p>
<p> The theory that a nuclear war would take a long time to build up originated in the West at the beginning of the nuclear age. It is incomprehensible and absurd, and it completely mystifies Soviet marshals. For a long time there was a secret debate at the highest levels of the Soviet government — have the Western politicians and generals gone off their heads or are they bluffing? It was concluded that, of course, no one really believed in the theory but that it had been thought up in order to hide what Western policy-makers really believed about the subject. But then the question arose: for whose benefit could such an unconvincing and, to put it mildly, such a silly idea have been dreamed up? Presumably not for that of the Soviet leadership. The theory is too naive for specialists to believe. That must mean that it was devised for the ignorant and for the popular masses in the West, to reassure the man in the street.<br />
— Viktor Suvorov. Inside the Soviet Army
</p></blockquote>
<p> etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gaikokumaniakku</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2026/02/if-brinkmanship-means-anything-it-means-manipulating-the-shared-risk-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3761772</link>
		<dc:creator>Gaikokumaniakku</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 17:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.isegoria.net/?p=53859#comment-3761772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Thomas Schelling explains the manipulation of risk in Arms and Influence…”

I regret that I have not been making time to read this blog as had been my habit in past years. I have been missing out on highly instructive posts! Now I think I might have to make time to read Schelling&#039;s book!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Thomas Schelling explains the manipulation of risk in Arms and Influence…”</p>
<p>I regret that I have not been making time to read this blog as had been my habit in past years. I have been missing out on highly instructive posts! Now I think I might have to make time to read Schelling&#8217;s book!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
