2 ms·

This is basically what I hoped the parent might be alluding to. However, while I believe you about what you're describing, my personal experience of people want

This is basically what I hoped the parent might be alluding to. However, while I believe you about what you're describing, my personal experience of people wanting more tangible military action has not been "I think we could win a nuclear war", but rather, "I don't think it will come to nuclear war" (not sure if that's a better or worse attitude). Related: I usually find these conversations kind of gliding around what I think is the primary point. There's the military tactics, gambles, and trade-offs; and the immediate and long-term effect on societies; but I feel like it's usually kind of glossed over that 10s of millions of civilians will die. It's one thing to talk about putting the lives of your army on the table, and gamble on how long it will take for society to catch back up to where we are, but it's quite another thing to put entire civilian centers on the table. Of course, I really have no idea how far Russia, or anybody, would have to go to make that gamble worth it. Putin's threats of the nuclear murder of millions of innocent people for the "crime" of participating in the war he started essentially puts NATO in a much larger-scale version of the "negotiating with terrorists" situation. I've never been so unsure as to what the proper level of response is.

oneoff786 5y ago
Yes, obviously this. I support stronger military action. I don’t want nuclear war. Again, obviously. All that blob of text is pointless. NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Whether Russia chooses to use nukes, likely against kyiv, is really independent of that distinction. Whether the west responds with nukes is all but assuredly “no”.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  It's like everyone is afraid of stopping the bully beating up on a weak kid because the bully also threatens to respond to intervention with a gun. Yet the bully also knows if they actually use the gun they'll be put down like a feral dog before they have time to reload.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    No that’s not quite right. Nobody is going to do anything if the bully shoots the weak kid.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      So if Russian nukes Ukraine no one will respond militarily?
      - oneoff786 5y ago
        Probably not?
  - pharke 5y ago
    That's a terrible analogy, nuclear weapons are more akin to everyone being armed with grenades and trapped in the same room. You're going to get hit no matter what so as soon as one person pulls a pin their target is going to do the same and everyone is getting hit by shrapnel.
- pharke 5y ago
  > NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Let's examine that from a counterfactual standpoint. Let's say that during the invasion of Iraq Russia had decided to impose a no fly zone and then proceeded to shoot down American aircraft when they violated it. They of course declared that they have no offensive ambitions, they're simply helping to defend a sovereign nation against a larger aggressor. Would that have caused the United States to attack Russian forces?
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    It wouldn’t have caused the United States to attack Russian forces in Russia. They may have engaged each other as part of a proxy war in Iraq.
ChuckMcM 5y ago
You comment is precisely correct. It is the trolley problem writ large. That is part of the reason why there are college courses dedicated to the topic, pages and pages of historical analysis of the choices made in situations in the past their their outcomes, analyses of the issues leading up to the "fulcrum point" of the crisis, and daily assessments (guesses) of the mental state of, and the response of, the key players in the situation. That these situations are not popping up every day is a testament to the work of a functional state department and diplomatic corps. And it is why the people in that corps who heard a President extorting a foreign leader by withholding military support in exchange political favors, were so horrified.

oneoff786 5y ago

Yes, obviously this. I support stronger military action. I don’t want nuclear war. Again, obviously. All that blob of text is pointless. NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Whether Russia chooses to use nukes, likely against kyiv, is really independent of that distinction. Whether the west responds with nukes is all but assuredly “no”.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
It's like everyone is afraid of stopping the bully beating up on a weak kid because the bully also threatens to respond to intervention with a gun. Yet the bully also knows if they actually use the gun they'll be put down like a feral dog before they have time to reload.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  No that’s not quite right. Nobody is going to do anything if the bully shoots the weak kid.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    So if Russian nukes Ukraine no one will respond militarily?
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      Probably not?
- pharke 5y ago
  That's a terrible analogy, nuclear weapons are more akin to everyone being armed with grenades and trapped in the same room. You're going to get hit no matter what so as soon as one person pulls a pin their target is going to do the same and everyone is getting hit by shrapnel.
pharke 5y ago
> NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Let's examine that from a counterfactual standpoint. Let's say that during the invasion of Iraq Russia had decided to impose a no fly zone and then proceeded to shoot down American aircraft when they violated it. They of course declared that they have no offensive ambitions, they're simply helping to defend a sovereign nation against a larger aggressor. Would that have caused the United States to attack Russian forces?
- oneoff786 5y ago
  It wouldn’t have caused the United States to attack Russian forces in Russia. They may have engaged each other as part of a proxy war in Iraq.

ChuckMcM 5y ago

You comment is precisely correct. It is the trolley problem writ large. That is part of the reason why there are college courses dedicated to the topic, pages and pages of historical analysis of the choices made in situations in the past their their outcomes, analyses of the issues leading up to the "fulcrum point" of the crisis, and daily assessments (guesses) of the mental state of, and the response of, the key players in the situation. That these situations are not popping up every day is a testament to the work of a functional state department and diplomatic corps. And it is why the people in that corps who heard a President extorting a foreign leader by withholding military support in exchange political favors, were so horrified.