3 ms·
But the leafleting campaign has been going so well! This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of
by adhesive_wombat 5y ago
But the leafleting campaign has been going so well!
This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion.
The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.
- jacquesm 5y agoNuclear weapons are in play. If not for that the Russians would have to face the rest of Europe and possibly other countries as well.
- alephnan 5y agoWell isn’t that exactly the game dynamic and prisoner’s dilemma? What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma? Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ). The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoSure, nuclear weapons exist in the context of the war, but what I mean is that the alternative to protracted standoff bombing of cities into rubble is a nuclear attack (which is basically the same thing but faster). I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
- amitport 5y agoWould they? If US + NATO open war on Russia it may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) even if nuclear weapons are not used.