https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1506802625756471302
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1506795348488040449
This is the message we should be sending imo. But we have to back it up if it actually happens.
If that happens I suspect at least half the NATO countries are going in regardless of what the US does. Definitely Poland and the Baltics. And at that point we’re getting dragged along anyway.
6 Likes
One of our massive derails that turned into its own thread was basically started by me speculating/hoping that the Russians are being warned that any use of nukes leads to a NATO attack.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1506847090441347073
1 Like
what would the strategy be here? In a world without nukes, poland could probably roll into moscow within a few days considering how much of Russia’s army is literally stuck in the mud. but in a world where Putin has already used a tactical nuke, there’s virtually no further restrictions on him, he’s going to use more tactical nukes on any invading army.
Putin will welcome us as liberators?
2 Likes
Probably air strikes against the Russian army in Ukraine and the Russian Air Force everywhere? As you say, it’s hard to see what good comes from sending in ground troops.
1 Like
Was discussing with someone last night and wasn’t 100% sure but all insurance is void in times of war, correct? So if your house or business is levelled by the Russians you just lose everything, right?
The funniest subplot is definitely Syria and Belarus jerking Putin around like they’re shady contractors and he’s doing a reno. “Oh yeah, the troops, definitely. We just had a little scheduling conflict with the IFV guy, but we’ll be out there in two weeks, no problems.”
6 Likes
Insurance is usually there for force majeure events, so it probably depends on the exact policy wording. Much in the way that fire and flood are separate covers with separate sublimits under a home insurance policy, war may also be available as a separate cover in locations where it is a real risk.
I’ve worked at companies that provide a “political risk” line which covers business interruption and losses due to, inter alia, war, but that is for corporate clients, not private clients. I don’t know a huge amount about the commodity insurance market.
It feels like WW3 is inevitable within the next few years.
If Putin uses a nuke, he ain’t using just one.
He knows that using a nuke will warrant an immediate response from the US of many nukes. So if he only gets one shot to use his nukes, he’s gonna use as many as possible in one go and suck up the response.
In Canada war is usually excluded from coverage. There’s also the practical question of whether insurance matters in a massive event like a large scale war, where the claims would bankrupt the insurer. You’d be relying entirely on the benevolence and strength of the government at that point.
Same could be said for earthquake and flood cover. Carriers which provide cat (catastrophe) lines usually do fairly sophisticated exposure/aggs modelling and take out appropriate reinsurances so that they can sustain related losses concentrated in one geographic location. In most jurisdictions, filings showing capital sufficiency in this respect are required by the regulator, and the rules for this got much more stringent after 9/11 when a bunch of carriers couldn’t pay.