5 ms·

Wait. What? People are cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict? I missed that. Links?

by dimal 5y ago

lamp987 5y ago
Plenty of people call for NATO enforcing no-fly-zone over Ukraine, including Ukrainian president.
- gambiting 5y ago
  I do, because I believe we should call Putin's bluff. He wouldn't dare to shoot down NATO planes above Ukraine and would have to back down. In line with that, I don't believe NATO planes shooting down russian planes above Ukraine or vice versa would lead to a nuclear escalation.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Are you sure the world would react the way you expect to a NATO shoot down? To a nuke in Poland? Maybe our side isn’t willing to roast 100s of millions of Russians if push came to shove.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      I don't know how you arrived from "shooting a plane above Ukraine" to a "nuke in Poland". And no, of course we don't have any guarantees either way. But just like Putin puts his troops in Ukraine and says "what are you going to do about it", I believe we should do the same thing back - impose a no fly zone above Ukraine and call his idiotic bluff, he knows what attacking NATO would mean for him too.
      - armitron 5y ago
        Normally, I'd find your comment amusing, but I know there are policy folks out there with decision-making power that are pushing similar utterly idiotic narratives. That's very scary.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    Oh yes he would dare. For him, the Ukrainian airspace is no different from Russia’s own.
    - vandreas2 5y ago
      Or so he says. There is be no point in bombing your own territory though.
      - Koshkin 5y ago
        And he won't be bombing his own.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    He shot down a passenger airliner and got away with it. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two fucks about shooting down NATO war planes. Just so we're clear on that.
- scotty79 5y ago
  That's not nuclear escalation. Assuming that is taking Putin at his word. Which is worth nothing.
  - dwmbt 5y ago
    perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game. i'm very glad i took up a career where these are dinner-time conversations and that i don't have to bear the weight of making those kinds of decisions. can i ask why you think it's a bluff from putin? for my entire life, the media has portrayed him as either an evil genius or a mad-man (sometimes, both). in any case, it's painted a picture of a man perfectly capable of taking everyone down with him. why should i think otherwise? note: i am being completely earnest in this response. in the last week, i have thrown up several times post doom-scrolling on twitter. i had to delete the app. i am convinced this will end up with everyone in dust. my mind has reverted to the following quote from The Wasteland several times: << "And I will show you something different from either << Your shadow at morning striding behind you << Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; << I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Exactly bacause he's evil genius, and a madman or both or none of those why would we consider any word comming out of his mouth to be related in any way to his behavior? He might use nukes just because he's loosing in Ukraine. He might use them at any point because he already feels threatened. He might use them because he had a bad dream. How can we take any of this into account? The only thing we can do is to choose the fiction we believe in. And I think correct fiction to believe in is the one that Putin won't use too many nukes if NATO won't cross Russia borders and clearly advertises that intent. And if Putin really uses some nukes (probably against military targets in Ukraine) and NATO won't respond with their nukes, just with conventional means, nuclear restraint won't be broken, by anyone except a clear madman
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      > perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game. The problem with this approach is that in every future conflict this argument will be in play and so in every future conflict there is no plausible way to finish the conflict other than let the aggressor roll with it. This might be the first time when a nuclear weapon is used offensively without being fired.
- lexapro 5y ago
  That's not exactly "cheering on nuclear escalation" though. I'm against further escalation, but I'm also against the notion that even the slightest western intervention is immoral because it might anger Mr. Putin into starting a nuclear war.
  - kragen 5y ago
    NATO enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would entail NATO blowing up radar and SAM installations manned by Russian soldiers in Russia near the Ukrainian border. I'm no expert on politics or warfare but it sure seems like NATO directly attacking Russia like that would be pretty likely to result in MIRV launches.
  - lamp987 5y ago
    NATO military directly attacking Russian military means nuclear war. Thats what MAD is all about.
- spsful 5y ago
  0 links provided, point dismissed
  - lamp987 5y ago
    Ok.
vikingerik 5y ago
it_does_follow 5y ago
I second this question. In the last few days I've heard pretty heavy reference to "people cheering on nuclear war" but haven't seen it first hand anywhere. A link to an opinion piece that explicitly states this, or even a few high-profile twitter accounts espousing this view would at least convince me it's happening. Heck, even browsing reddit comments and hacker news comments I've seen no view encouraging nuclear war. Even 4chan doesn't seem to have any posts proclaiming this view.
- armitron 5y ago
  In realpolitik terms, nuclear war is the most likely outcome of any further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off. It's just that most folks do not think in such terms and are crafting delusions where that doesn't take place: Revolution in Russia! Putin will be overthrown! Minor nuclear escalation then everyone will back off! Let's have NATO get involved in Ukraine then it'll be on the Russians if they pull the trigger! They would never dare! People are talking about the Russians being brainwashed, but read most of the comments in this thread and you'll realize they're far from being the only ones.
  - somedude895 5y ago
    > further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off. Here's a sovereign nation that tries to save its independence, pleading with the West / EU / NATO for protection. Then you have a ruler who has been saying for years that that nation should not exist and should be part of his empire, then proceeds to invade. The framing of this as a NATO vs Russia issue, where NATO should "back down" to prevent further escalation, making Ukraine merely a pawn in some greater game, is absolutely disgusting.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
tasha0663 5y ago
Any and all escalation goes in this direction. It's not hard to see. Don't be a fool on purpose.
phire 5y ago
I haven't seen people cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict. What I have seen is large groups of people taking the position that the West should not let Russia use threats of a potential Nuclear war to bully the west around too much. That the West should not back down just because Russia has Nukes and is threatening to use them. Some of them may offer views that Putin might be bluffing, or that his command structure might not follow the order to launch a large scale strike. Or that Russian Nuclear weapons are probably so poorly maintained that they won't even get off the ground anyway. But these people seem to generally accept that their position might lead to a full-scale nuclear conflict, and that's a risk that is worth taking. I personally don't think these views should be descried as "cheering on the idea of a nuclear conflict", but there probably people taking on the position that anything other than avoiding further escalation counts as "pro nuclear conflict". I have absolutely seen Russian diplomats taking this position.
- vandreas2 5y ago
  Putin has to be seen to threaten and others have to be seen to threaten to meet him. Otherwise why stop at Ukraine when he can keep threatening?

Wait. What? People are cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict? I missed that. Links?

by dimal 5y ago

Wait. What? People are cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict? I missed that. Links?

lamp987 5y ago

Plenty of people call for NATO enforcing no-fly-zone over Ukraine, including Ukrainian president.

gambiting 5y ago
I do, because I believe we should call Putin's bluff. He wouldn't dare to shoot down NATO planes above Ukraine and would have to back down. In line with that, I don't believe NATO planes shooting down russian planes above Ukraine or vice versa would lead to a nuclear escalation.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Are you sure the world would react the way you expect to a NATO shoot down? To a nuke in Poland? Maybe our side isn’t willing to roast 100s of millions of Russians if push came to shove.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    I don't know how you arrived from "shooting a plane above Ukraine" to a "nuke in Poland". And no, of course we don't have any guarantees either way. But just like Putin puts his troops in Ukraine and says "what are you going to do about it", I believe we should do the same thing back - impose a no fly zone above Ukraine and call his idiotic bluff, he knows what attacking NATO would mean for him too.
    - armitron 5y ago
      Normally, I'd find your comment amusing, but I know there are policy folks out there with decision-making power that are pushing similar utterly idiotic narratives. That's very scary.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Oh yes he would dare. For him, the Ukrainian airspace is no different from Russia’s own.
  - vandreas2 5y ago
    Or so he says. There is be no point in bombing your own territory though.
    - Koshkin 5y ago
      And he won't be bombing his own.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  He shot down a passenger airliner and got away with it. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two fucks about shooting down NATO war planes. Just so we're clear on that.
scotty79 5y ago
That's not nuclear escalation. Assuming that is taking Putin at his word. Which is worth nothing.
- dwmbt 5y ago
  perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game. i'm very glad i took up a career where these are dinner-time conversations and that i don't have to bear the weight of making those kinds of decisions. can i ask why you think it's a bluff from putin? for my entire life, the media has portrayed him as either an evil genius or a mad-man (sometimes, both). in any case, it's painted a picture of a man perfectly capable of taking everyone down with him. why should i think otherwise? note: i am being completely earnest in this response. in the last week, i have thrown up several times post doom-scrolling on twitter. i had to delete the app. i am convinced this will end up with everyone in dust. my mind has reverted to the following quote from The Wasteland several times: << "And I will show you something different from either << Your shadow at morning striding behind you << Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; << I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Exactly bacause he's evil genius, and a madman or both or none of those why would we consider any word comming out of his mouth to be related in any way to his behavior? He might use nukes just because he's loosing in Ukraine. He might use them at any point because he already feels threatened. He might use them because he had a bad dream. How can we take any of this into account? The only thing we can do is to choose the fiction we believe in. And I think correct fiction to believe in is the one that Putin won't use too many nukes if NATO won't cross Russia borders and clearly advertises that intent. And if Putin really uses some nukes (probably against military targets in Ukraine) and NATO won't respond with their nukes, just with conventional means, nuclear restraint won't be broken, by anyone except a clear madman
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    > perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game. The problem with this approach is that in every future conflict this argument will be in play and so in every future conflict there is no plausible way to finish the conflict other than let the aggressor roll with it. This might be the first time when a nuclear weapon is used offensively without being fired.
lexapro 5y ago
That's not exactly "cheering on nuclear escalation" though. I'm against further escalation, but I'm also against the notion that even the slightest western intervention is immoral because it might anger Mr. Putin into starting a nuclear war.
- kragen 5y ago
  NATO enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would entail NATO blowing up radar and SAM installations manned by Russian soldiers in Russia near the Ukrainian border. I'm no expert on politics or warfare but it sure seems like NATO directly attacking Russia like that would be pretty likely to result in MIRV launches.
- lamp987 5y ago
  NATO military directly attacking Russian military means nuclear war. Thats what MAD is all about.
spsful 5y ago
0 links provided, point dismissed
- lamp987 5y ago
  Ok.

vikingerik 5y ago

it_does_follow 5y ago

I second this question. In the last few days I've heard pretty heavy reference to "people cheering on nuclear war" but haven't seen it first hand anywhere. A link to an opinion piece that explicitly states this, or even a few high-profile twitter accounts espousing this view would at least convince me it's happening. Heck, even browsing reddit comments and hacker news comments I've seen no view encouraging nuclear war. Even 4chan doesn't seem to have any posts proclaiming this view.

armitron 5y ago
In realpolitik terms, nuclear war is the most likely outcome of any further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off. It's just that most folks do not think in such terms and are crafting delusions where that doesn't take place: Revolution in Russia! Putin will be overthrown! Minor nuclear escalation then everyone will back off! Let's have NATO get involved in Ukraine then it'll be on the Russians if they pull the trigger! They would never dare! People are talking about the Russians being brainwashed, but read most of the comments in this thread and you'll realize they're far from being the only ones.
- somedude895 5y ago
  > further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off. Here's a sovereign nation that tries to save its independence, pleading with the West / EU / NATO for protection. Then you have a ruler who has been saying for years that that nation should not exist and should be part of his empire, then proceeds to invade. The framing of this as a NATO vs Russia issue, where NATO should "back down" to prevent further escalation, making Ukraine merely a pawn in some greater game, is absolutely disgusting.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

tasha0663 5y ago

Any and all escalation goes in this direction. It's not hard to see. Don't be a fool on purpose.

phire 5y ago

I haven't seen people cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict. What I have seen is large groups of people taking the position that the West should not let Russia use threats of a potential Nuclear war to bully the west around too much. That the West should not back down just because Russia has Nukes and is threatening to use them. Some of them may offer views that Putin might be bluffing, or that his command structure might not follow the order to launch a large scale strike. Or that Russian Nuclear weapons are probably so poorly maintained that they won't even get off the ground anyway. But these people seem to generally accept that their position might lead to a full-scale nuclear conflict, and that's a risk that is worth taking. I personally don't think these views should be descried as "cheering on the idea of a nuclear conflict", but there probably people taking on the position that anything other than avoiding further escalation counts as "pro nuclear conflict". I have absolutely seen Russian diplomats taking this position.

vandreas2 5y ago
Putin has to be seen to threaten and others have to be seen to threaten to meet him. Otherwise why stop at Ukraine when he can keep threatening?