Twitter | Haku | |
Elbridge Colby
Director of Defense Program . Formerly Pentagon, National Defense Strategy, inter alia. Views expressed my own.
1 767
Twiitit
658
Seuratut
2 507
Seuraajat
Twiitit
Elbridge Colby 1 t
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @russianforces @nukestrat ja 5 muulle
I’m not saying he said selective. I’m saying his statement in no way appears to rule that out. He may have other reasons not to be explicit on that point in this format.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 1 t
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @russianforces @nukestrat ja 5 muulle
Right - I think preempt/prevent difference is about imminence. I'm referring to difference between large (essentially total) release vs. selective, deliberate escalation. Putin's comments seem compatible with latter.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Jasen Castillo 2 t
Yes! All those Russian nukes of various yields and ranges are not there simply for a secure second strike. They give Russia the flexibility for different first options ala Cold War NATO.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 2 t
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @russianforces @nukestrat ja 5 muulle
Preemption in English implies a large attack designed to forestall the other side's ability to carry out its own large attack. That's different from "escalate to deescalate." What is the relationship in Russian?
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 2 t
Defer on Russian lang, but Putin seems to be talking about policy for large-scale launch - LUA. That doesn't rule out limited use. RF's strategy seems smart - deliberate, selective escalation, coupled with a secure second strike. It's not irresponsible, it's just dangerous...
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Thomas Shugart 8. syysk.
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @tshugart3
So, taking that factor of speed into account, I'd now estimate China's naval strike aircraft as about 3 times as effective at anti-surface warfare as 5 years ago, and about 60 times as effective as 10 years ago.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Thomas Shugart 6. syysk.
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @tshugart3
Also, as I discussed in a related thread, China’s SCS island airfields may significantly increase the reach of these naval strike aircraft in the region. All in all, pretty sobering stuff, IMO. The End.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Thomas Shugart 19 t
This is an interesting article, and I certainly wouldn't argue that there is no risk of nuclear conflict if any two nuclear-armed nations got into a full-scale shooting war. But I have some significant issues with some practical aspects of this piece:
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 4 t
Superb, careful analysis of the issue from . There is risk but it shouldn’t be exaggerated. This plays into PRC’s hands. They have if anything even greater incentives to avoid large nuclear war than we. &
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Geoff Brumfiel 20 t
Now seems like a really good time to go re-read 's piece from earlier this week...
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
David Santoro 19. lokak.
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @DEricSayers @ElbridgeColby ja 5 muulle
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Eric Sayers 19. lokak.
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @ElbridgeColby @elyratner ja 4 muulle
I would add this 2015 monograph to the list.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
ORF 15. lokak.
The era of “understanding” Chinese civilisation and accommodating its myriad “manifestations” in today’s Communist Party⎯controlled China — a line pursued by the Chinese and Henry Kissinger — is formally over. From Seema Sirohi:
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 19. lokak.
Historic article helping usher in crucial shift on US policy toward China
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 18. lokak.
Hugh White is right that, to deter a rising China, US ultimately needs to be prepared to fight a limited nuclear war. He is wrong that we won't have the resolve to do it. I lay out the case for how we can meet that standard here.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Ian Easton 17. lokak.
Damn that's good reading! I just finished it and shared w/ team. Thank you to & congrats to for this remarkable article. Highly recommend spending the time to read it, discuss it, and think about it.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 17. lokak.
Bingo: "We have lots of legacy, middleweight forces that are too expensive for low-end conflict, and ill-suited for high-end combat." These are the types of forces that should be on the chopping block, and now.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby uudelleentwiittasi
Ely Ratner 17. lokak.
“A certain kind of Cold War thinking may be just what Washington and its allies need.” in November/December edition of offers a nuclear strategy for new era of great power competition.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 17. lokak.
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @TomCollina
Ok...And??? I actually quoted the Perry line in the piece. How is it rational for anyone to blow up the world over a limited use of nuclear weapons? Deterrence isn't that easy.
Reply Retweet Tykkää
Elbridge Colby 17. lokak.
Sure thing: I’d cut non nuclear forces irrelevant to high end fight and expensive for low end. Divide isn’t between nuke vs conventional but rather high low mix vs (legacy) middleweight force
Reply Retweet Tykkää