5 ms·

Triggering world war 3 would also help reduce the population which could reduce co2 emissions and food requirements. Killing a few birds with one stone.

chrsig 4y ago
I really wish the last few years didn't make me desensitized to the notion.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time"." That is what they have been threatening...
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    They threaten everyone and change their mind all the time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      The question was would they really "say" it.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        It felt pretty clear to me the intention was saying it "to themselves" and following up with actual action. Nobody cares if they say things aloud.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    in that case, it would be russia starting ww3, and I don't think they will.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I agree, but they will spin it from their prospective to say Han, I mean we, shot first.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        But there is no spin. There's either global thermonuclear war or there's nothing. If NATO isn't invading Russia, and Russia isn't invading NATO, then nothing has changed. Does Russia want to start global thermonuclear war because they can argue a technicality that it's not their fault? No, I don't think so. They could start the war and the outcome would be the same at any time they want. Excusing the edge case of a pathetic attempt of a land invasion of Finland or Poland or something crazy.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time". Because Vladimir Putin is currently very very defective.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    More like incompetent
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      I suspect he's about as far down the vascular dementia pathway as Trump is, despite being five years younger.
  - geoka9 4y ago
    He's also very very scared to do anything of consequence. Look, the Ukrainian invasion was the only reckless thing he's ever done and look how it turned out.
- nradov 4y ago
  Russia might respond with conventional cruise missile strikes against US forces in the region.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Shrug. We're shipping $40B of shit to ukraine. It really doesn't matter.
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    Unlikely. That would give all of NATO casus belli.
axiosgunnar 4y ago
I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world. And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to this statement will consist of, it will not change my stance, so do not bother.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  I’ll drink to that!
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world." Well many people went to Ukraine to fight on their side. If that is what you do why would anyone bother "changing your stance". Just go and do it. But if you expect other people to perish in WWIII for the sake your stance they might hold a different opinion about that part.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.
      - geoka9 4y ago
UnFleshedOne 4y ago
That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK). Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).
trasz 4y ago
We are talking about a country that can’t even supply proper boots to its troops. Why believe that the nuclear weapons they inherited from USSR still work?

chrsig 4y ago

I really wish the last few years didn't make me desensitized to the notion.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".

giantg2 4y ago
"Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time"." That is what they have been threatening...
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  They threaten everyone and change their mind all the time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    The question was would they really "say" it.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      It felt pretty clear to me the intention was saying it "to themselves" and following up with actual action. Nobody cares if they say things aloud.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  in that case, it would be russia starting ww3, and I don't think they will.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I agree, but they will spin it from their prospective to say Han, I mean we, shot first.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      But there is no spin. There's either global thermonuclear war or there's nothing. If NATO isn't invading Russia, and Russia isn't invading NATO, then nothing has changed. Does Russia want to start global thermonuclear war because they can argue a technicality that it's not their fault? No, I don't think so. They could start the war and the outcome would be the same at any time they want. Excusing the edge case of a pathetic attempt of a land invasion of Finland or Poland or something crazy.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
> Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time". Because Vladimir Putin is currently very very defective.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  More like incompetent
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    I suspect he's about as far down the vascular dementia pathway as Trump is, despite being five years younger.
- geoka9 4y ago
  He's also very very scared to do anything of consequence. Look, the Ukrainian invasion was the only reckless thing he's ever done and look how it turned out.
nradov 4y ago
Russia might respond with conventional cruise missile strikes against US forces in the region.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Shrug. We're shipping $40B of shit to ukraine. It really doesn't matter.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  Unlikely. That would give all of NATO casus belli.

axiosgunnar 4y ago

I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world. And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to this statement will consist of, it will not change my stance, so do not bother.

withinboredom 4y ago
I’ll drink to that!
FpUser 4y ago
>"I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world." Well many people went to Ukraine to fight on their side. If that is what you do why would anyone bother "changing your stance". Just go and do it. But if you expect other people to perish in WWIII for the sake your stance they might hold a different opinion about that part.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.
    - geoka9 4y ago

UnFleshedOne 4y ago

That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK). Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).

trasz 4y ago

We are talking about a country that can’t even supply proper boots to its troops. Why believe that the nuclear weapons they inherited from USSR still work?