3 ms·

Maybe it's the decades of arms reductions, the diplomatic relations, and the lack of a highly disputed border area which periodically erupts into violence? But

by M_Grey 10y ago

Maybe it's the decades of arms reductions, the diplomatic relations, and the lack of a highly disputed border area which periodically erupts into violence? But no... it must just be a double standard... if you squint hard enough.

vkou 10y ago
As opposed to decades of proxy wars, sponsoring terrorism, election-dependent schizophrenia on the part of the Department of State, and much larger weapon arsenals? The decades of arms reductions still put the arsenals of either the US, or Russia at ~10 times that of India and Pakistan combined. At least India has a no-first-use policy. I'm not saying things are better in that conflict, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's a whole lot of red herrings there, which have nothing to do with nuclear policy or not wanting to empower one side of an ongoing nuclear standoff with superior tech. It does at least tell anyone with a scrap of skepticism though, where you're coming from. Equivocation is at the heart of apologism.
  - vkou 10y ago
    All of these things are incredibly relevant. Over the years, US-Russian relations have fluctuated between begrudging tolerance, open contempt, proxy wars, and even nuclear brinksmanship. While the odds of nuclear conflict between them may be lower then the odds of one between India and Pakistan (And this is an arguable point), it will be incredibly more devastating. As such, it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that New Delhi has it's thumb on the doomsday button, but that Moscow or Washington don't.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Except that you reversed the order of that list, which is in fact just the deescalation away from nuclear brinksmanship. As for devastation, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010...

3 ms·

Maybe it's the decades of arms reductions, the diplomatic relations, and the lack of a highly disputed border area which periodically erupts into violence? But

by M_Grey 10y ago

vkou 10y ago
As opposed to decades of proxy wars, sponsoring terrorism, election-dependent schizophrenia on the part of the Department of State, and much larger weapon arsenals? The decades of arms reductions still put the arsenals of either the US, or Russia at ~10 times that of India and Pakistan combined. At least India has a no-first-use policy. I'm not saying things are better in that conflict, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's a whole lot of red herrings there, which have nothing to do with nuclear policy or not wanting to empower one side of an ongoing nuclear standoff with superior tech. It does at least tell anyone with a scrap of skepticism though, where you're coming from. Equivocation is at the heart of apologism.
  - vkou 10y ago
    All of these things are incredibly relevant. Over the years, US-Russian relations have fluctuated between begrudging tolerance, open contempt, proxy wars, and even nuclear brinksmanship. While the odds of nuclear conflict between them may be lower then the odds of one between India and Pakistan (And this is an arguable point), it will be incredibly more devastating. As such, it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that New Delhi has it's thumb on the doomsday button, but that Moscow or Washington don't.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Except that you reversed the order of that list, which is in fact just the deescalation away from nuclear brinksmanship. As for devastation, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010...