3 ms·

Russia is holding the knife of thermonuclear war to the world's throat while it decimates cities full of men, women and children. Damn right we're going to do a

Russia is holding the knife of thermonuclear war to the world's throat while it decimates cities full of men, women and children. Damn right we're going to do anything and everything in our power to cut them off from any source of aid or comfort. The alternative is direct military intervention, and no one wants to go down that road.

ratsmack 5y ago
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Countries prefer NATO, because of a malicious actor/bully at the door.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blagie 5y ago
76% of Americans want to go down that road, based on surveys around establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine. I do too. This is being played tactically rather than strategically. The knife of thermonuclear war will still be there in 5 years and in 50 years. If we cave to it, we lose in the long term: - Russia will do whatever it wants, until it crosses a line where we're drawn into WWIII; or - Other countries develop nuclear programs, if it gives a carte blanche to do anything they want Belarus is going nuclear, thanks to our (lack of) reaction. That's just a start of what's coming. Whether Putin launches nukes is up to Putin. It might be a bluff. It might not be. If it's not a bluff, we'll get to that point soon enough....
- awb 5y ago
  Kennedy was able to blockade Cuba without the conflict escalating into nuclear war, so there is precedent. I honestly don’t see the strategic value in launching a 1st strike for an altercation outside your own territory. If Putin wants territory or a legacy, launching nukes is a failure because: 1) no one is around to care, or those that survived will always hate you 2) you end up destroying the very territory you wanted But then again, you’re only wrong once.
  - blagie 5y ago
    You're wrong only once, but assuming: 1) Putin is crazy enough to launch nukes; and 2) that Russian nukes work in the first place Which decision is more likely to trigger Putin to launch nukes is still an open question. My tactical analysis says appeasement is most likely to avoid nukes tomorrow. My strategic analysis says that containment is the right strategy to avoid nukes in my lifetime. Aggression can't be rewarded.

ratsmack 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago
Countries prefer NATO, because of a malicious actor/bully at the door.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blagie 5y ago

76% of Americans want to go down that road, based on surveys around establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine. I do too. This is being played tactically rather than strategically. The knife of thermonuclear war will still be there in 5 years and in 50 years. If we cave to it, we lose in the long term: - Russia will do whatever it wants, until it crosses a line where we're drawn into WWIII; or - Other countries develop nuclear programs, if it gives a carte blanche to do anything they want Belarus is going nuclear, thanks to our (lack of) reaction. That's just a start of what's coming. Whether Putin launches nukes is up to Putin. It might be a bluff. It might not be. If it's not a bluff, we'll get to that point soon enough....

awb 5y ago
Kennedy was able to blockade Cuba without the conflict escalating into nuclear war, so there is precedent. I honestly don’t see the strategic value in launching a 1st strike for an altercation outside your own territory. If Putin wants territory or a legacy, launching nukes is a failure because: 1) no one is around to care, or those that survived will always hate you 2) you end up destroying the very territory you wanted But then again, you’re only wrong once.
- blagie 5y ago
  You're wrong only once, but assuming: 1) Putin is crazy enough to launch nukes; and 2) that Russian nukes work in the first place Which decision is more likely to trigger Putin to launch nukes is still an open question. My tactical analysis says appeasement is most likely to avoid nukes tomorrow. My strategic analysis says that containment is the right strategy to avoid nukes in my lifetime. Aggression can't be rewarded.