147 ms·
The logical conclusion of this is the "first strike" doctrine of MAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_nuclear_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre
by karpierz 5y ago
The logical conclusion of this is the "first strike" doctrine of MAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_nuclear_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_nuclear_strike).
Every major power has had 50 years to prepare for it, and it won't work.
You want to respond proportionally, and make it hurt. But you also want to leave room for more pain, to give incentive for the behaviour to stop. And you need to make sure that your adversary believes that you'll keep hurting them. This is why we use some, but not all of the economic sanctions available:
1. If things get worse, we can make the sanctions worse.
2. We're much more likely to be able to maintain sanctions than soldiers in foreign wars.
- mvc 5y agoThey have already encircled a sovereign nation with their army and are moving in. Our "proportionate" response so far has been to shut down a couple of banks. I'm not talking about a nuclear strike. All out nuclear war is clearly in nobody's interest (what's the point in ruling over a nuclear wasteland). Putin is relying on the fact that we are all so scared about that scenario that we will be weak in our support of Ukraine (and Latvia, Lithuania, Poland....). China talks a good game now but how long do you think China will tolerate Russia bombing their most valuable customers?
- smegger001 5y agodepends on how much of the south china sea, bits of India and other neighbors they can grab while the west is busy in Europe.