Like I said, I can’t see it as “pure” compliance. That carrot quietly carried a lot of the baggage.

And the crisis communications weren’t broadcast on social media…

I can't think of any case of successful "pure" compellence. Did we "compel" the removal of Soviet missiles with the quarantine and threats of escalation, or "negotiate" removal by putting the removal of US missiles from Turkey onto the table?

The phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” perfectly describes his attitude towards people he thinks are below him. And he thinks everyone is below him. He is dismissive and pompous in almost every conversation.

It sounds exactly like something Bridge would do. Combine the depth of his Catholic knowledge with the height of his presumed intellectual prowess and ego; I can easily see him lecturing the Pipe.

As I said earlier, this Administration has a problem with coercive threats because Trump has a huge credibility gap. Even when he tries to signal his commitment, and sets up a commitment trap, he TACOs. Problem is, even though its not tonight, he may hit his red line and fall into his own trap.

Back in the early 2000s, after 9/11 and the fear we might soon face rogue nations with WMD, there were some youngish Pentagon staff who argued that nuclear war was not so awful because we could shoot first and they couldn't shoot back. They are now middle-aged, and some are back in the Pentagon.

Thus, even if he didn't intend for us to "hear" a nuclear threat, we may get there anyway. Coercive first use threats require a credible commitment to coercive first use. (fin)

That's the problem here. With his "mob boss" strategy of threats and deadlines, and his TACO reputation, Trump may have not choice but to follow through on his threat to Iran's civilian infrastructure. And if that doesn't bring them to heel, then he'll have to escalate to protect his ego. (5)

But ambiguous threats always have to balance a potential credibility gap with the risk of a commitment trap. And as Sagan has noted, a "U.S. president" might feel compelled to retaliate with nuclear weapons "to maintain his or her international and domestic reputation for honoring commitments." (4)

That's the goal of coercive threats. He has successfully gotten all of us on this site to debate the will he/won't he question. We see a higher risk, but not a certainty. The problem for this President is that his credibility, when issuing such threats, is weak, since he has a TACO habit. (3)

Following the basics of deterrence theory this is not deterrence, it's compellence, and even Schelling had doubts about compellence as a coercive strategy. But the point of the threat is not to answer a yes/no (will he or won't he) question. The goal is to manipulate risk at the margin (2)

While we contemplate the meaning of the President's latest threat of war crimes, I'd like to apply some deterrence theory to this--specifically, Schelling, with a side a Sagan. As Robert Farley has said, the President seems to have put nuclear weapons on the table, but probably won't use them. (1)

Not to add to your worries, but there’s one high level civilian appointee in the Pentagon who has thought a lot about nuclear weapons issues. And he was actively pitching the idea that “limited nuclear war” would not be so bad during “polite conversations” at nukes nerd dinners.

I don’t know much about conventional military planning, but I do know that the prompt and persistent destruction of the entire electrical grid (and all the bridges) in a large country would require a massive amount of firepower. Unless nukes.

It’s not just that Trump won’t care about collateral damage—he’ll probably see it as a benefit for bombing them back to the “Stone Age. It’s also a problem because he’s created a commitment trap, and his ego may now be craving this display of “strength.”

I got it.

Me too

He thinks it will make him look strong.

I have a joke about nuclear deterrence, but I'm afraid it might not work in a a crisis.

It's designed to turn young teen-age girls into sleuths in their effort to decipher every reference, then allow them to torture their young children decades later when they insist on singing along to every single word for the entire 8 minutes and 30 seconds. While identifying all the references.

Mazel Tov!

I had a similar review once. I was asked to write as a widely-recognized expert on the subject. Reviewer seemed to assume I was an uniformed grad student. Suggested I engage more with the literature (I wrote much of it) and consult a specific expert (who I've been friends with for decades.)

There was a school of thought in DOD for a few years after 9/11 that we could use nukes, if other guy can’t shoot back, as a dominance message. I was horrified by it at the time. But there’s again dominance and primacy theme again in some parts of the nuclear community now. I’m still horrified.

I’d go with 5%, which is an order of magnitude too high for me to be comfortable.

Nope. He’s the commander in chief and it’s a legal order.

Andrew, I generally agree with you, but non-use is a norm. And norms require memory of past horrors and understanding of future costs. Hegseth has already said they are breaking former norms in the interest of “warrior ethos” and lethality. And Trump is impulsive, and obsessed with looking strong.

No one can say “no.” The president has sole authority over decision to launch.

“Why do we have nuclear weapons if we can’t use them?” “We could use one against North Korea then deny it was us.” And don’t forget “fire and fury.” He is obsessed with “the biggest” and “strongest” of everything. And no one around him is aware of the horror this would create. So I’d say maybe 5%.