3 ms·

>You're presenting a false dichotomy No, I did not present a false dichotomy. "Up to and including" is not a dichotomy, it's a gradient of escalation. Seems pr

>You're presenting a false dichotomy No, I did not present a false dichotomy. "Up to and including" is not a dichotomy, it's a gradient of escalation. Seems pretty clear. >My opinion is that you prevent nuclear war by showing strength. Not by helping Ukraine fight, but by ensuring Ukraine wins. If Putin is willing to use nukes now, he would be way more willing to do it 10 years later... So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange. Why do you refuse to own the logical consequences of your rhetoric? >Given they can no longer advance with their regular army, they launch nukes at EU... for any other fake reason. Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory. At worst you threaten MAD, you don't initiate a MAD scenario. This is the nonsense you dream up when you assume your adversary is totally irrational.

hbrn 4y ago
> So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange My take is that ensuring Russia loses decreases the risk of nuclear exchange. I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed. Russia has already threatened to use nukes. Where exactly is the line between them threatening and using that we shouldn't cross? You presumptuously act as if know exactly where the fine line is. But lines are blurry. Maybe we're already past the point of no return. Maybe we've been there for the last 10 years. > Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. And yet it happens, and people like you are finding their ways to rationalize it. I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  Just as a side note to your post anyone who uses the annexation of the territories as a increase to the nuclear threat. Ukraine has been hitting territory that Russia either claims to own (Crimea) or actually owns (Belgorod) since the start of the war and nothing happened. This should be the clearest message to everyone that all this nuclear talk from Russia is just posturing. They had every chance to justify this months ago and they didn’t.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed Obviously nothing is guaranteed, it's all a matter of probabilities/credences. But this is exactly why you can't make decisions based on the average/expected outcome and leave it at that. The utility of a nuclear exchange is so massively negative that it rationally requires giving that scenario a wide berth, wider than a simple likelihood assessment would suggest. That you are only considering the expected response in your analysis and resist considering the worst-case just shows how inadequate and ill-considered your proposal is. >Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. You don't seem to know what MAD is at all. >I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda. I care about truth. I couldn't care less who else says it or what "side" it helps.

hbrn 4y ago

> So in fact your policy is that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange My take is that ensuring Russia loses decreases the risk of nuclear exchange. I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed. Russia has already threatened to use nukes. Where exactly is the line between them threatening and using that we shouldn't cross? You presumptuously act as if know exactly where the fine line is. But lines are blurry. Maybe we're already past the point of no return. Maybe we've been there for the last 10 years. > Utterly ridiculous. This is unequivocally MAD territory Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. And yet it happens, and people like you are finding their ways to rationalize it. I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda.

_kbh_ 4y ago
Just as a side note to your post anyone who uses the annexation of the territories as a increase to the nuclear threat. Ukraine has been hitting territory that Russia either claims to own (Crimea) or actually owns (Belgorod) since the start of the war and nothing happened. This should be the clearest message to everyone that all this nuclear talk from Russia is just posturing. They had every chance to justify this months ago and they didn’t.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
>I don't know why you keep throwing in "up to nuclear exchange" in your argument as if it's somehow guaranteed Obviously nothing is guaranteed, it's all a matter of probabilities/credences. But this is exactly why you can't make decisions based on the average/expected outcome and leave it at that. The utility of a nuclear exchange is so massively negative that it rationally requires giving that scenario a wide berth, wider than a simple likelihood assessment would suggest. That you are only considering the expected response in your analysis and resist considering the worst-case just shows how inadequate and ill-considered your proposal is. >Same has been said about Crimea annexation. And about eastern Ukraine annexation. And about current invasion. You don't seem to know what MAD is at all. >I don't know if you realize it, but you are constantly echoing Russian propaganda. I care about truth. I couldn't care less who else says it or what "side" it helps.