4 ms·

Yes but Putin is dropping 500 pound bombs on civilian apartment complexes. Jets vs Jets and military vs military is the horror of war but right now it's a slaug

by ck2 5y ago

Yes but Putin is dropping 500 pound bombs on civilian apartment complexes. Jets vs Jets and military vs military is the horror of war but right now it's a slaughter of the innocent. To pretend it's -not- going to end up in multi-country conflict if we just sit back is -exactly- what happened in WW2, everyone sat back and watched while millions of innocents suffered and died and then finally drew a line. Ok, no "boots on the ground". But stop the 500 pound bombs on apartment complexes. Imagine if it was your street and what you'd be begging the world to be saved.

ericmay 5y ago
I don’t think you can piecemeal it. If we do a “no-fly zone” you might as well put boots on the ground because that’s what will happen anyway. What do you think stops Putin from “feeling threatened” by NATO warplanes flying out of Poland and using a nuclear weapon on an airbase to “solve the problem”. If you cross the threshold then why wouldn’t he just assume NATO is attacking Russia and just start new military operations? The no-fly zone is certainly worth considering but it adds instability with unpredictable outcomes. Of course if people were dropping bombs on my neighborhood I’d be begging for salvation. I’d be begging for more than a no-fly zone. I’d want Russian military bases bombed and international forces engaging in combat to repel invaders too. Should we also do that? Russians aren’t using only 500lb bombs. They’re on the ground with machine guns, they launch missiles from Russian territory, and they use artillery. We have to be careful. There is a lot at stake here. I agree with your suggestions about appeasement, but the situations aren’t totally the same since NATO apparently has a far more dominant military and economically it’s not even a discussion. Germany had the best military to start WWII.
vkou 5y ago
'Enforcing a no-fly zone' is a euphemism for 'declaring war'. You can't enforce the former without doing the latter, because people with SAMs are going to start shooting at your airplanes, and your 'no-fly zone' now turns into a 'we are bombing ground troops zone' which is indistinguishable from a 'we have declared war' zone.

by ck2 5y ago

ericmay 5y ago

I don’t think you can piecemeal it. If we do a “no-fly zone” you might as well put boots on the ground because that’s what will happen anyway. What do you think stops Putin from “feeling threatened” by NATO warplanes flying out of Poland and using a nuclear weapon on an airbase to “solve the problem”. If you cross the threshold then why wouldn’t he just assume NATO is attacking Russia and just start new military operations? The no-fly zone is certainly worth considering but it adds instability with unpredictable outcomes. Of course if people were dropping bombs on my neighborhood I’d be begging for salvation. I’d be begging for more than a no-fly zone. I’d want Russian military bases bombed and international forces engaging in combat to repel invaders too. Should we also do that? Russians aren’t using only 500lb bombs. They’re on the ground with machine guns, they launch missiles from Russian territory, and they use artillery. We have to be careful. There is a lot at stake here. I agree with your suggestions about appeasement, but the situations aren’t totally the same since NATO apparently has a far more dominant military and economically it’s not even a discussion. Germany had the best military to start WWII.

vkou 5y ago

'Enforcing a no-fly zone' is a euphemism for 'declaring war'. You can't enforce the former without doing the latter, because people with SAMs are going to start shooting at your airplanes, and your 'no-fly zone' now turns into a 'we are bombing ground troops zone' which is indistinguishable from a 'we have declared war' zone.