5 ms·

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

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.

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.