5 ms·
It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortabl
by liuliu 5y ago
It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortable for Russia's (almost) inevitable escalation to nukes.
For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready.
The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
- hunterb123 5y agoAvoiding nuclear war and WW3 is not giving Russia a free pass. This is the mentality that's dangerous. It's strange to see the population shift pro-war so suddenly, and for nuclear warfare nonetheless...
- liuliu 5y agoThere are stances and desires. Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States. At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.
- hunterb123 5y ago> The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasionss, possibly to a NATO ally. Does it? Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Russia is doing this because they don't want Ukraine to be a NATO ally (and other reasons). Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement. We shouldn't go to war beforehand because "maybe our allies might be attacked in the future" that doesn't make any sense. None of this is in support of Russia, but in support of relative world peace. But yes you should be prepared for anything as an individual. The US is always in constant readiness to fight wars (2 to be specific) as a policy.. I've always prepped, but I don't want WW3 nor do I think we should escalate due to the Ukraine invasion.
- kgwgk 5y ago> Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement. Will you want WW3 in that case?
- hunterb123 5y agoI would support war if a NATO country is attacked. I don't want any war. I don't support annexing problematic countries into NATO, especially those that border on adversaries or expand to them. I support defending the status quo of NATO, not world policing.
- kgwgk 5y ago> annex [verb] - add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation I don't think anyone supports NATO annexing countries, problematic or otherwise.
- hunterb123 5y agoThat's one definition, use the one that makes sense in context: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex I was expecting a retort of more substance after I answered your question.
- kgwgk 5y agoThe issue is that "annexing" has already a precise meaning in the current Russia-annexing-territories context! [Your use may be acceptable. But Google finds no matches for "annexing into NATO" and only a few for "annexation into NATO".]
- hunterb123 5y agoWell if it's acceptable and you understand now, care to reply to my response to your question?
- torstenvl 5y agoIt is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging and empowering the dictator who is threatening it. It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging those who would seek nuclear weapons, by letting Russia throw its weight around because it has them. And it is not possible to avoid nuclear war by discouraging those who, like Ukraine, would disarm, by letting Ukraine be overrun. The situation in Ukraine is an operational challenge. We cannot let its resolution undermine strategic goals.