38 ms·

A smart man who has despised Putin for years is leveraging this crisis to push the west into full scale war. There are many people dying as a result of an unjus

A smart man who has despised Putin for years is leveraging this crisis to push the west into full scale war. There are many people dying as a result of an unjust war, but I have yet to see evidence of "industrial scale genocide". Putin is an unstable man with enough nukes to render the planet uninhabitable. This is not WWIII yet. It sucks, but thousands of deaths is probably not worth risking the future of billions of humans.

javajosh 5y ago
Agree, with the addition that Kasparov is operating something like an attorney, zealously advocating for his client, or in this case, against his opponent. We shouldn't do what he says, but his voice is the purest anti-Putin sentiment in the world, and has been for a long time. Regarding nuclear brinkmanship, I suspect that a purely rational actor will lose: the nuclear thug will take some, then take some more, and each time the rational actor will acquiesce to avoid nuclear war. This will result in the nuclear thug taking over the world, piece by piece. Ergo, it makes sense to risk nuclear war, or at least convey that you're willing to risk it, because if you don't you lose.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
  That's the point of MAD. It's a Mexican Standoff, if anyone pulls the nuclear trigger then everyone does and everyone dies. That doesn't mean you can win by other means, any action that threatens the other party will be met with the nuclear option. The only players allowed to move or be moved upon are those outside of the game. Treaties like NATO can bring non-nuclear powers into the fold which serves to "protect" them but also signs them up for the suicide pact.
  - mgamache 5y ago
    MAD assumes rational actors. As soon as you introduce crazy people (AKA Putin) that no longer functions. Even if Putin is rational it's plausible that he is not, so he is an asymmetrical threat.
    - throwaway4aday 5y ago
      We did it first[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- mgamache 5y ago
  If I were Putin (a sociopath with no regard for my own safety), I would drop a low yield bomb on Eastern Ukraine. Then ask the rest of the world to roll over give me whatever I ask for. Or Else you'll be next.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    I 100% agree, and believe the only thing that will stop it is disloyal missileers.
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    >If I were Putin (a sociopath with no regard for my own safety), I would drop a low yield bomb on Eastern Ukraine. Given the widespread reports during this war of Russian equipment in poor condition, I've been thinking about this possibility for a while: * Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might. * The weapon is a dud. I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
TMWNN 5y ago
>There are many people dying as a result of an unjust war, but I have yet to see evidence of "industrial scale genocide". Indeed; Russia was expected to completely flatten all major Ukrainian cities by air in the first day of the war. All those clips of angry Ukrainians jeering nervous Russian troops wouldn't exist if the troops simply gunned down all hostile civilians. This is also why I am reluctant to call the war "genocide" or a "war crime". They are both terms with pretty specific definitions. Not all wars are genocidal. What Putin and Russian troops are doing is bad enough without misrepresenting their actions.

javajosh 5y ago

Agree, with the addition that Kasparov is operating something like an attorney, zealously advocating for his client, or in this case, against his opponent. We shouldn't do what he says, but his voice is the purest anti-Putin sentiment in the world, and has been for a long time. Regarding nuclear brinkmanship, I suspect that a purely rational actor will lose: the nuclear thug will take some, then take some more, and each time the rational actor will acquiesce to avoid nuclear war. This will result in the nuclear thug taking over the world, piece by piece. Ergo, it makes sense to risk nuclear war, or at least convey that you're willing to risk it, because if you don't you lose.

throwaway4aday 5y ago
That's the point of MAD. It's a Mexican Standoff, if anyone pulls the nuclear trigger then everyone does and everyone dies. That doesn't mean you can win by other means, any action that threatens the other party will be met with the nuclear option. The only players allowed to move or be moved upon are those outside of the game. Treaties like NATO can bring non-nuclear powers into the fold which serves to "protect" them but also signs them up for the suicide pact.
- mgamache 5y ago
  MAD assumes rational actors. As soon as you introduce crazy people (AKA Putin) that no longer functions. Even if Putin is rational it's plausible that he is not, so he is an asymmetrical threat.
  - throwaway4aday 5y ago
    We did it first[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
mgamache 5y ago
If I were Putin (a sociopath with no regard for my own safety), I would drop a low yield bomb on Eastern Ukraine. Then ask the rest of the world to roll over give me whatever I ask for. Or Else you'll be next.
- javajosh 5y ago
  I 100% agree, and believe the only thing that will stop it is disloyal missileers.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >If I were Putin (a sociopath with no regard for my own safety), I would drop a low yield bomb on Eastern Ukraine. Given the widespread reports during this war of Russian equipment in poor condition, I've been thinking about this possibility for a while: * Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might. * The weapon is a dud. I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!

TMWNN 5y ago

>There are many people dying as a result of an unjust war, but I have yet to see evidence of "industrial scale genocide". Indeed; Russia was expected to completely flatten all major Ukrainian cities by air in the first day of the war. All those clips of angry Ukrainians jeering nervous Russian troops wouldn't exist if the troops simply gunned down all hostile civilians. This is also why I am reluctant to call the war "genocide" or a "war crime". They are both terms with pretty specific definitions. Not all wars are genocidal. What Putin and Russian troops are doing is bad enough without misrepresenting their actions.