5 ms·

Well yes? Is there any indication, given Putin’s back to a wall that he would not order nukes as a final fuck you ?

tshaddox 4y ago
Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone?
- brandonmenc 4y ago
  > allowed to do literally anything Uh, yeah? If you have nukes you can pretty much do whatever you want, short of launching them at another nuclear power. That's just like, reality. Remember this the next time everyone bellyaches about "unfair sanctions" or whatever when some country even hints that they're pursuing a nuclear program.
  - vogre 4y ago
    And if you don't have nukes, nuclear powers can do pretty much anything they wsant to you. As we have seen in Lybia, Serbia, Iraq, Syria. So don't be surprised when another country is rushing for nukes at all cost. These are the only thing that protect you against the West.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - beefield 4y ago
    > Uh, yeah? There was something about liberty and safety and deserving neither that some US president said long time ago that I think might very much apply here.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Well I appreciate your commitment to your position, but that’s patently absurd.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone? "Henry Kissinger, who wondered in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would actually work: ‘A reliance on all-out war as the chief deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our allies feel that any military effort on their part is unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender... [1]" In summary, the concern you raise is actively discussed in security circles. Post Ukraine, it's increasingly common to see the absolute nuclear taboo questioned. Until the first nuclear power lobs a tactical nuke and doesn't suffer reprisal, we'll be in an uncomfortable transition period, analogous to the time immediately preceding MAD. (And let's be honest. If Putin lobbed a tactical nuke at Ukraine, does anybody seriously think he'd face military force?) [1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
- Jcowell 4y ago
  I’m suggesting that outright war can be disastrous. That if we’re to take out Putin, it would need to be in a way that would not prompt him to Nuke any part of the planet. Personally I’m in favor of internal strife within the Russian government or assassination. Anything that does not give him the chance to leave a spiteful gift.
yks 4y ago
What is the wall there? Pre-Feb 24 status quo? Why does Putin need to commit suicide in that case? He didn't need to commit suicide before February.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
Fuck who? He's more likely to destroy Russia and not much else. Given the performance of the Russian military what makes you think that Russian nukes (and the people who operate them) are any better? US intelligence and capabilities are likely much more effective than anyone knows.

Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone?

brandonmenc 4y ago
> allowed to do literally anything Uh, yeah? If you have nukes you can pretty much do whatever you want, short of launching them at another nuclear power. That's just like, reality. Remember this the next time everyone bellyaches about "unfair sanctions" or whatever when some country even hints that they're pursuing a nuclear program.
- vogre 4y ago
  And if you don't have nukes, nuclear powers can do pretty much anything they wsant to you. As we have seen in Lybia, Serbia, Iraq, Syria. So don't be surprised when another country is rushing for nukes at all cost. These are the only thing that protect you against the West.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- beefield 4y ago
  > Uh, yeah? There was something about liberty and safety and deserving neither that some US president said long time ago that I think might very much apply here.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Well I appreciate your commitment to your position, but that’s patently absurd.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone? "Henry Kissinger, who wondered in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would actually work: ‘A reliance on all-out war as the chief deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our allies feel that any military effort on their part is unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender... [1]" In summary, the concern you raise is actively discussed in security circles. Post Ukraine, it's increasingly common to see the absolute nuclear taboo questioned. Until the first nuclear power lobs a tactical nuke and doesn't suffer reprisal, we'll be in an uncomfortable transition period, analogous to the time immediately preceding MAD. (And let's be honest. If Putin lobbed a tactical nuke at Ukraine, does anybody seriously think he'd face military force?) [1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
Jcowell 4y ago
I’m suggesting that outright war can be disastrous. That if we’re to take out Putin, it would need to be in a way that would not prompt him to Nuke any part of the planet. Personally I’m in favor of internal strife within the Russian government or assassination. Anything that does not give him the chance to leave a spiteful gift.

yks 4y ago

What is the wall there? Pre-Feb 24 status quo? Why does Putin need to commit suicide in that case? He didn't need to commit suicide before February.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

Fuck who? He's more likely to destroy Russia and not much else. Given the performance of the Russian military what makes you think that Russian nukes (and the people who operate them) are any better? US intelligence and capabilities are likely much more effective than anyone knows.