>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 matt

>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.