2 ms·
You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. > And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. The ke
by bluekeybox 15y ago
You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing.
> And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare.
The key word is "usually". How usually is usually? When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning? There was none. True, major attacks are rare, but when they do come, I would say about 50% of them are without warning. Yes, they are usually preceded by some diplomatic hostility, but not always. There were some 45 years of diplomatic hostility between the US and the USSR, yet there was no attack.
But the biggest thing you are missing is this: attacks on a major power by another major power are rare precisely because the country being attacked is a major power. Attacks of a major power on a minor country happen about every five years or so if recent history is any guide.
- Helianthus 15y ago>You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. Side note from the referee: writing is a form of thinking things through, and even if it isn't you're distracting from the issue. 5 yard deduction and 2 minutes in the penalty box, plus parent gets a free shot.
- arethuza 15y ago"When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning?" Stalin had plenty of advance warning - there were even people defecting from the German ranks and telling them that the Germans were coming (they were probably shot for their troubles). Even after the invasion started Stalin refused to believe the reports coming from frontline units for a long time after the invasion started. See: http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/stalincourtredtsar.aspx
- bluekeybox 15y agoIntelligence information is speculative and absolutely cannot be compared to an official warning.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- bluekeybox 15y agoDon't understand the downvotes, but just to explain: with intelligence information, there is always a possibility that it could have come from an unreliable source or a source who purposefully tried to mislead. With an official ultimatum such an ambiguity is absent.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago"official warning" Does this mean you would only count it as a "warning" if the Nazis actually sent an envoy that said, "Hey, we're coming for you now?"
- ghshephard 15y agoI'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about (though from a casual scan it appears to be something to do with the security of nuclear arms, and relative risk of those arms being compromised in a domestic uprising, versus destroyed by a foreign power) - but on HN, we have a tradition of civil discussion, so the comment, ""You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing."" is inappropriate here. You may have a delightfully convincing and logical treatise on this topic, but if you lose your audience in the first sentence, we won't get the benefit of it. A casual scan of the parent's commentary indicates some semblance of cognitive analysis of the issues at hand, so it's not even clear to me your analysis of their (lack of) thinking before exposition is accurate, and, regardless, you could have worded your position somewhat more politely - perhaps by identifying the flaws in their logic, rather than making a claim of lack of thought on their part. A civil apology would go a long ways towards recovering traction in your discussion with them and convincing the readers of this thread of your good will.