4 ms·

> Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. Yes, how dare he suggest that a peaceful resolution involving som

> Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. Yes, how dare he suggest that a peaceful resolution involving some compromise of both sides of the conflict might be better for humanity to avoid it escalating into full world war with the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. Certainly we can’t undermine those actions and goals—it would be simply terrible to avoid all that death and destruction.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> some compromise of both sides If you interrupted a rape, would you suggest a compromise where he promises to finish up quickly in order to keep it peaceful?
- kcplate 4y ago
  Would you interfere at the probable cost of a billion or more lives? I’m not suggesting by any means what Russia is doing is justified and not horrific. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a country that has a nuclear arsenal that can do a significant amount of damage and may be willing to use it. That has to be considered.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Do you have a limit? If he wants Lithuania and says he’ll use nukes do you say ‘well ok you’ve got nukes’ and sorry to everyone who lives there and just hand it over to him? Also I just think ‘compromise’ is a ludicrous term to use - it’s not an informed business-like ‘compromise’ to allow someone to permanently subjugate you it’s submission.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Do you not have a limit? Let's say a tyrannical dictator wants to brutally oppress millions of people and threatens that if you try to stop him, he'll shell Seoul and may throw a few nukes too. Not many nukes, just a few. Do you run in guns blazing to throw him out of power? For the past several decades, the US has seen fit to leave the Kim family in power because the alternatives have all been judged worse for a variety of reasons. So of course there are limits, but where are the limits? That's the meat of the matter, and there is no one objectively correct answer. Where those limits are is a political matter, and can be debated endlessly. (FWIW, I hope the US government continues to support Ukraine in their war against the invading russians. But I'm not going off on people who suggest there is a limit; obviously there is a limit. The Biden administration certainly perceives such limits, otherwise why isn't the full force of the US Military in Ukraine right now fighting alongside Ukrainians? Because there are limits and the Biden administration is realistic enough to recognize that.)
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        I feel like that’s the argument I made myself? People are incredulous that people think that at some point you need to stop him, but they have the same limit in mind just at a different red line. The current limit of these people has been shown repeatedly to be in the wrong place - appeasement has encouraged Putin to create more violence and suffering. Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it?
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > The current limit of these people has been shown repeatedly to be in the wrong place "these people", it sounds like you're doing a lot of generalizing. Different people have different limits and the concern is for the future of the conflict, not the past. Hindsight has limited applicability to the future. The Biden administration is presently operating with limits that more hawkish parties can characterize as appeasement. Why not gift Ukraine some tanks? More missiles? Why not bring the full force of the US Military to bear against Putin? These limits are all forms of appeasement from the perspective of those more hawkish than the Biden administration. Who is right, Biden presently, or those more hawkish than him, or even those less hawkish than him? Personally I think Biden is doing a very good job so far, but only time will tell. Nothing about the future is known for certain in the present.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        ‘These people’ is the opposite of generalising because I’m replying to two specific comments with specific limits.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        That's not the way it came across, but sure. Either way, my point about you not reading the future remains. > Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it? You can't demonstrate something about the future, except to wait and see how things unfold. We may yet be blundering our way into a thermonuclear war, or maybe we aren't. Time will be the judge of it. Everybody who perceives a line that shouldn't be crossed is engaging in some form of appeasement, so using that term as a cudgel is short-sighted; the same accusation could easily be made against you. Why don't you support [measure which you think would go too far]? Appeasement, right? That's probably not how you'd characterize your own position, but unless you're the most hawkish voice in the room that accusation can certainly be leveled against you just as you level it against those people. Without being able to see the full web of possible outcomes, what does it even mean to be demonstrably wrong? Take my position, that the Biden administration is generally doing a good job of managing NATO support and involvement. Well objectively, the war has not ended yet. Maybe somewhere in the web of possible realities, the war has already ended in Ukraine's favor because Biden behaved differently. Has Biden's handling of the war then been demonstrably wrong because the war is demonstrably still ongoing? Do you see the problem? Counterfactuals cannot be objectively judged. Neither the alternate reality with more appeasement, nor the one with less. The basis for my support of Biden's handling of the war is simply this: thus-far there is no nuclear war, and I subjectively judge the present and near-future risk of nuclear war to be low. The passage of time will reveal the truth about the decisions made in our timeline, but even that won't reveal the outcomes of counterfactual realities. Those are closed to us, we can only speculate about what could have been. How then can speculation about a counterfactual reality be demonstrably wrong?
    - kcplate 4y ago
      If I can’t kill the cancer today without killing the entire patient, but can control the cancer’s harm to a degree, I would much rather the patient stay alive and sick until one day we can eradicate the cancer without killing the patient.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        But it doesn’t control it - he keeps taking more every few years - and you think he should do it unchallenged which would make it faster and faster. Controlling it is stopping him taking land, not allowing it. And do you have any idea how to eradicate the cancer of Putin long term? If not then you’re delaying with no way to stop, so he’ll eventually get everything he wants.
        kcplate 4y ago
        > And do you have any idea how to eradicate the cancer of Putin long term? I do actually, this particular cancer will certainly not last longer than about 20 more years, probably even significantly less if the news reports are accurate. Keep the patient alive, this cancer goes away in time. If the problem is a single man with an already limited lifespan, why not wait it out? Why kill the patient to cure a temporary cancer?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > If the problem is a single man Do you think there's nobody who will take power in Russia after he dies? I think there will be, and I think he'll be similar.
        kcplate 4y ago
        Of course there will be. I mentioned that specifically in the other conversation. It’s precisely the reason why creating a worldwide conflict out of this is pointless. The problem isn’t one man, it’s our nature. There have always been tyrants and likely will always be tyrants unless we as a species can one day deny our nature. We will not permanently fix this if Putin is out of power even at the cost of a worldwide conflict.
- hnov 4y ago
  It's more complicated than that though, you're interrupting a rape, in the victim's house, the perpetrator is their neighbor and they have a gun (so do you) so bloodshed is imminent if you get involved, you're the victim's significant other, but you don't care that much about them, you've been beefing with the perpetrator over who gets to store their car on the victim's lawn. The rape should stop and the perpetrator punished, but it's still not clear who gets to store their car on the victim's lawn (what you care about). You really want the victim to off their violent neighbor so you slip them an icepick and slip out the door.
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
n8cpdx 4y ago
Repeating kremlin talking points after they ignored attempts to negotiate a compromise for months before a completely unjustified invasion isn’t helping. Do you seriously think people don’t try negotiations? You can hop off Elon’s dick now. @dang why can’t I flag this bullshit?
- kcplate 4y ago
  Being anti apocalypse and world war 3 is bullshit now? Flag away if it allows you, or have the moderator remove me, but bear in mind that all you are doing is flagging/removing a comment suggesting that peace is preferable to war.
NLPlatypus 4y ago
We let them take parts of Georgia in 2008 and some of Ukraine in 2014. Now they tried to take the entire Ukraine and take more Baltic states afterwards.
ganoushoreilly 4y ago
I just don't understand this sudden appreciation for escalation from the same groups of people that have been screaming against that kind of action for decades. EDIT: I bet the vast majority of the people downvoting and pressing for conflict in this thread have never seen such atrocities up close. The primary goal always needs to be de-escalation and saving lives.
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  There is no "appreciation for escalation". What there is, is appreciation for the fact that giving in to nuclear blackmail supercharges proliferation and makes nuclear war much more likely, because now every state with expansionist designs realizes "Holy shit, if I have nukes I can take whatever I want as long as I threaten to go nuclear if I don't get it", and rushes to get nuclear weapons as fast as possible. By contrast, sending a hard No to irredentist states which threaten nuclear strikes if anyone opposes their expansion signals that it's not worth the effort to get nukes and that they won't help your expansionism.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    If there was intent to use a nuke it would be used and no one can do anything about it. That door to pandoras box was opened and has been demonstrated horrifically already. If that fear and acknowledgement isn't enough then there is nothing you can say or do to stop that escalation. Where do you stand on gun control / gun rights? Do you think it's important to have the ability to stand up and defend against armed agressors?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  What do you think would stop him invading another country again tomorrow if there was a compromise? If each time he invades he knows he’ll get some compromise that is a little win, why would he not do it again and again? Your solution extends the human suffering indefinitely. Not only the fighting - but because citizens of Russia are less free than others countries.
  - 4y ago
MichaelCollins 4y ago
As a free citizen of America, Elon should know better than to speak his mind about things. He's not qualified to have an opinion and should instead defer to the experts, the government.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> some compromise of both sides If you interrupted a rape, would you suggest a compromise where he promises to finish up quickly in order to keep it peaceful?

kcplate 4y ago
Would you interfere at the probable cost of a billion or more lives? I’m not suggesting by any means what Russia is doing is justified and not horrific. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a country that has a nuclear arsenal that can do a significant amount of damage and may be willing to use it. That has to be considered.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Do you have a limit? If he wants Lithuania and says he’ll use nukes do you say ‘well ok you’ve got nukes’ and sorry to everyone who lives there and just hand it over to him? Also I just think ‘compromise’ is a ludicrous term to use - it’s not an informed business-like ‘compromise’ to allow someone to permanently subjugate you it’s submission.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Do you not have a limit? Let's say a tyrannical dictator wants to brutally oppress millions of people and threatens that if you try to stop him, he'll shell Seoul and may throw a few nukes too. Not many nukes, just a few. Do you run in guns blazing to throw him out of power? For the past several decades, the US has seen fit to leave the Kim family in power because the alternatives have all been judged worse for a variety of reasons. So of course there are limits, but where are the limits? That's the meat of the matter, and there is no one objectively correct answer. Where those limits are is a political matter, and can be debated endlessly. (FWIW, I hope the US government continues to support Ukraine in their war against the invading russians. But I'm not going off on people who suggest there is a limit; obviously there is a limit. The Biden administration certainly perceives such limits, otherwise why isn't the full force of the US Military in Ukraine right now fighting alongside Ukrainians? Because there are limits and the Biden administration is realistic enough to recognize that.)
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      I feel like that’s the argument I made myself? People are incredulous that people think that at some point you need to stop him, but they have the same limit in mind just at a different red line. The current limit of these people has been shown repeatedly to be in the wrong place - appeasement has encouraged Putin to create more violence and suffering. Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it?
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > The current limit of these people has been shown repeatedly to be in the wrong place "these people", it sounds like you're doing a lot of generalizing. Different people have different limits and the concern is for the future of the conflict, not the past. Hindsight has limited applicability to the future. The Biden administration is presently operating with limits that more hawkish parties can characterize as appeasement. Why not gift Ukraine some tanks? More missiles? Why not bring the full force of the US Military to bear against Putin? These limits are all forms of appeasement from the perspective of those more hawkish than the Biden administration. Who is right, Biden presently, or those more hawkish than him, or even those less hawkish than him? Personally I think Biden is doing a very good job so far, but only time will tell. Nothing about the future is known for certain in the present.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        ‘These people’ is the opposite of generalising because I’m replying to two specific comments with specific limits.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        That's not the way it came across, but sure. Either way, my point about you not reading the future remains. > Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it? You can't demonstrate something about the future, except to wait and see how things unfold. We may yet be blundering our way into a thermonuclear war, or maybe we aren't. Time will be the judge of it. Everybody who perceives a line that shouldn't be crossed is engaging in some form of appeasement, so using that term as a cudgel is short-sighted; the same accusation could easily be made against you. Why don't you support [measure which you think would go too far]? Appeasement, right? That's probably not how you'd characterize your own position, but unless you're the most hawkish voice in the room that accusation can certainly be leveled against you just as you level it against those people. Without being able to see the full web of possible outcomes, what does it even mean to be demonstrably wrong? Take my position, that the Biden administration is generally doing a good job of managing NATO support and involvement. Well objectively, the war has not ended yet. Maybe somewhere in the web of possible realities, the war has already ended in Ukraine's favor because Biden behaved differently. Has Biden's handling of the war then been demonstrably wrong because the war is demonstrably still ongoing? Do you see the problem? Counterfactuals cannot be objectively judged. Neither the alternate reality with more appeasement, nor the one with less. The basis for my support of Biden's handling of the war is simply this: thus-far there is no nuclear war, and I subjectively judge the present and near-future risk of nuclear war to be low. The passage of time will reveal the truth about the decisions made in our timeline, but even that won't reveal the outcomes of counterfactual realities. Those are closed to us, we can only speculate about what could have been. How then can speculation about a counterfactual reality be demonstrably wrong?
  - kcplate 4y ago
    If I can’t kill the cancer today without killing the entire patient, but can control the cancer’s harm to a degree, I would much rather the patient stay alive and sick until one day we can eradicate the cancer without killing the patient.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      But it doesn’t control it - he keeps taking more every few years - and you think he should do it unchallenged which would make it faster and faster. Controlling it is stopping him taking land, not allowing it. And do you have any idea how to eradicate the cancer of Putin long term? If not then you’re delaying with no way to stop, so he’ll eventually get everything he wants.
      - kcplate 4y ago
        > And do you have any idea how to eradicate the cancer of Putin long term? I do actually, this particular cancer will certainly not last longer than about 20 more years, probably even significantly less if the news reports are accurate. Keep the patient alive, this cancer goes away in time. If the problem is a single man with an already limited lifespan, why not wait it out? Why kill the patient to cure a temporary cancer?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > If the problem is a single man Do you think there's nobody who will take power in Russia after he dies? I think there will be, and I think he'll be similar.
        kcplate 4y ago
        Of course there will be. I mentioned that specifically in the other conversation. It’s precisely the reason why creating a worldwide conflict out of this is pointless. The problem isn’t one man, it’s our nature. There have always been tyrants and likely will always be tyrants unless we as a species can one day deny our nature. We will not permanently fix this if Putin is out of power even at the cost of a worldwide conflict.
hnov 4y ago
It's more complicated than that though, you're interrupting a rape, in the victim's house, the perpetrator is their neighbor and they have a gun (so do you) so bloodshed is imminent if you get involved, you're the victim's significant other, but you don't care that much about them, you've been beefing with the perpetrator over who gets to store their car on the victim's lawn. The rape should stop and the perpetrator punished, but it's still not clear who gets to store their car on the victim's lawn (what you care about). You really want the victim to off their violent neighbor so you slip them an icepick and slip out the door.
dang 4y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

n8cpdx 4y ago

Repeating kremlin talking points after they ignored attempts to negotiate a compromise for months before a completely unjustified invasion isn’t helping. Do you seriously think people don’t try negotiations? You can hop off Elon’s dick now. @dang why can’t I flag this bullshit?

kcplate 4y ago
Being anti apocalypse and world war 3 is bullshit now? Flag away if it allows you, or have the moderator remove me, but bear in mind that all you are doing is flagging/removing a comment suggesting that peace is preferable to war.

NLPlatypus 4y ago

We let them take parts of Georgia in 2008 and some of Ukraine in 2014. Now they tried to take the entire Ukraine and take more Baltic states afterwards.

ganoushoreilly 4y ago

I just don't understand this sudden appreciation for escalation from the same groups of people that have been screaming against that kind of action for decades. EDIT: I bet the vast majority of the people downvoting and pressing for conflict in this thread have never seen such atrocities up close. The primary goal always needs to be de-escalation and saving lives.

Analemma_ 4y ago
There is no "appreciation for escalation". What there is, is appreciation for the fact that giving in to nuclear blackmail supercharges proliferation and makes nuclear war much more likely, because now every state with expansionist designs realizes "Holy shit, if I have nukes I can take whatever I want as long as I threaten to go nuclear if I don't get it", and rushes to get nuclear weapons as fast as possible. By contrast, sending a hard No to irredentist states which threaten nuclear strikes if anyone opposes their expansion signals that it's not worth the effort to get nukes and that they won't help your expansionism.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  If there was intent to use a nuke it would be used and no one can do anything about it. That door to pandoras box was opened and has been demonstrated horrifically already. If that fear and acknowledgement isn't enough then there is nothing you can say or do to stop that escalation. Where do you stand on gun control / gun rights? Do you think it's important to have the ability to stand up and defend against armed agressors?
chrisseaton 4y ago
What do you think would stop him invading another country again tomorrow if there was a compromise? If each time he invades he knows he’ll get some compromise that is a little win, why would he not do it again and again? Your solution extends the human suffering indefinitely. Not only the fighting - but because citizens of Russia are less free than others countries.
- 4y ago

MichaelCollins 4y ago

As a free citizen of America, Elon should know better than to speak his mind about things. He's not qualified to have an opinion and should instead defer to the experts, the government.