4 ms·

> defensive alliance Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? Regarding the rest of your arg

> defensive alliance Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.

whatshisface 5y ago
>Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
iostream24 5y ago
The reality is that swift decisive action in a coordinated fashion is the only way to stop an aggressor that suggest that everyone else needs to also lie down and shut up or they will get a thrashing too. Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible. Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “ The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story. Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim. Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now. Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
- pakitan 5y ago
  > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow. And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT, which is a relatively benign measure, compared to an all-out war, how confident are you that they will come in your defense in case of an actual war against a nuclear power?
  - iostream24 5y ago
    > And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT Not anymore. It takes a little bit to organize independently run republics, but once things get rolling… Also, there was this 1994 accord called the Budapest Memorandum… Mr P bit off more than he can chew, this time. There will be more NATO… Just when we thought it was all getting rather irrelevant and dated… Nothing like a “master strategist “ to galvanize the entire world against him suddenly when he had a substantial reserve of social capital in the leadup to this…
  - iostream24 5y ago
    Also > > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” > Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow Which is precisely what NATO provides

whatshisface 5y ago

>Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.

iostream24 5y ago

The reality is that swift decisive action in a coordinated fashion is the only way to stop an aggressor that suggest that everyone else needs to also lie down and shut up or they will get a thrashing too. Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible. Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “ The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story. Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim. Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now. Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…

pakitan 5y ago
> Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow. And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT, which is a relatively benign measure, compared to an all-out war, how confident are you that they will come in your defense in case of an actual war against a nuclear power?
- iostream24 5y ago
  > And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT Not anymore. It takes a little bit to organize independently run republics, but once things get rolling… Also, there was this 1994 accord called the Budapest Memorandum… Mr P bit off more than he can chew, this time. There will be more NATO… Just when we thought it was all getting rather irrelevant and dated… Nothing like a “master strategist “ to galvanize the entire world against him suddenly when he had a substantial reserve of social capital in the leadup to this…
- iostream24 5y ago
  Also > > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” > Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow Which is precisely what NATO provides