7 ms·

> If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it. I am afraid it's not just the vile selfish psychopathic maniacs, but

> If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it. I am afraid it's not just the vile selfish psychopathic maniacs, but also the general population, incensed by the media. For example, one might have thought that if the avoidance of a nuclear war were people's priority number one, then the Western media (supposing Russia is the lost cause) would have demanded, every day and from every corner, that the leaders of their countries must avoid any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe. That people would be marching on the streets with slogans demanding restraint. But that's not what is happening. The voices repeatedly cautioning their audience about the danger of a nuclear war are few and far between — Tulsi, Tucker, Eric Weinstein — and they are treated as traitorous or crazy.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Gaslighting is now a favorite tactic of those who control these levers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dandanua 4y ago
What's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes?
- d0mine 4y ago
  The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
    - D_Alex 4y ago
      >NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Think very carefully and tell me how is expanding NATO to the Russian borders in the interests of original NATO members?
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        > NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Can you elaborate how NATO is a threat to itself and everyone else? It would appear Putin is the greatest threat to Russia and everyone else. He is the one ignoring Russia's own territorial treaties. He is the aggressor invading sovereign states. NATO alliances are defense pacts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties.
        azangru 4y ago
        I think what the parent is suggesting is that NATO's tango with Russia (it always takes two, remember?) puts the world closer to the brink of annihilation. In a context when, as the title article suggests, 70% of the world population (or maybe more? they say "almost everyone", so perhaps 5,34 billion is a conservative estimate?) may die a violent death, words like territorial treaties or sovereign states start to lose their meaning.
        kibwen 4y ago
        It is ludicrous to suggest that Putin threatening to nuke Ukraine is somehow the fault of NATO. If Putin launches nukes in aggression, it is Putin's fault. Stop wringing your hands in apologetic appeasement to madmen.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    NATO didn't really move east. NATO is a security and industrial pact. You could accuse the EU of moving east as that is actually about giving up some sovereign control. Countries need to apply to join NATO. NATO doesn't try to get them in under any circumstances. Ukraine had been begging to join and NATO still hadn't let them. If NATO was an aggressive imperial force then Ukraine would have already been in it. The only real honest reason I can imagine Russia doesn't want countries to join NATO is because it wants the option left open to be able to attack them at some point.
- azangru 4y ago
  I am not sure this question describes the situation accurately, considering that the invaded country doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the invader wasn't threatening a nuclear attack against the invaded country. Your question might be rephrased to "what's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes, and you have nuclear weapons", or to "what's your response to a country that invades another country and threatens nuclear strikes if you come to its assistance". Which are both good questions, but different ones.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Not only have you avoided answering the parent's question, you have also avoided answering any of the alternative questions that you posed. Would you care to?
    - azangru 4y ago
      I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
      - zelphirkalt 4y ago
        > I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything. Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later. I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014. We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.
- elenaferrantes 4y ago
  Idk, maybe ask this to Japaneses or Panamanians.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    This is an absolutely ridiculous line of whataboutism that is historically ignorant and doesn’t deserve any serious response.
    - elenaferrantes 4y ago
      Yeah, sure. Like the song says : "do what I say, don’t do wha t I do" :-)
      - sixstringtheory 4y ago
        So you have a poor grasp of history and ethics, and, if you’re referencing the song I think you are, justify it with poorly understood song lyrics. I’m sure you are far from anything like a government official so I won’t lose sleep over it.
namdnay 4y ago
we tried that in the 30s. didn't work very well
- azangru 4y ago
  There were nuclear bombs in the 30s?
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
    I think his comment was about appeasing psychopathic bullies because "give him what he wants, he won't go any further after that!" didn't work, not that there were nukes back then
- choko 4y ago
  Serious question: Do you really think that Russia poses that kind of threat? We've seen how woefully their military has performed. There is no chance that Russia would be able to start rolling through Europe the same way Germany did. Especially now that they are so depleted that they are conscripting. I'm not saying appeasement is the way, but comparing this situation to Germany in the 30s is a bit off the mark.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    > We've seen how woefully their military has performed I guess the question is, would that military have performed as woefully if we had "avoided any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe"? Would Ukraine have been able to resist as well if we had ignored their cries for help?
  - taylodl 4y ago
    No. I don't believe Russia is a credible nuclear threat. Nuclear warheads aren't "set it and forget it" devices, they require continual maintenance, maintenance Russia has demonstrated they're not doing with any of the rest of their materiel due to corruption so why should be believe they're doing so for their nuclear stockpile? I honestly believe the reason Putin and the Kremlin are saber rattling about nuclear war is they're hoping to threaten us with our memory of their previous nuclear might. That might is gone. Putin is the emperor with no clothes. If he weren't so vile I'd feel sorry for him for being so pathetic.
D_Alex 4y ago

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Gaslighting is now a favorite tactic of those who control these levers.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dandanua 4y ago

What's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes?

d0mine 4y ago
The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.
- kibwen 4y ago
  NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
  - D_Alex 4y ago
    >NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Think very carefully and tell me how is expanding NATO to the Russian borders in the interests of original NATO members?
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      > NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Can you elaborate how NATO is a threat to itself and everyone else? It would appear Putin is the greatest threat to Russia and everyone else. He is the one ignoring Russia's own territorial treaties. He is the aggressor invading sovereign states. NATO alliances are defense pacts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties.
      - azangru 4y ago
        I think what the parent is suggesting is that NATO's tango with Russia (it always takes two, remember?) puts the world closer to the brink of annihilation. In a context when, as the title article suggests, 70% of the world population (or maybe more? they say "almost everyone", so perhaps 5,34 billion is a conservative estimate?) may die a violent death, words like territorial treaties or sovereign states start to lose their meaning.
        kibwen 4y ago
        It is ludicrous to suggest that Putin threatening to nuke Ukraine is somehow the fault of NATO. If Putin launches nukes in aggression, it is Putin's fault. Stop wringing your hands in apologetic appeasement to madmen.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  NATO didn't really move east. NATO is a security and industrial pact. You could accuse the EU of moving east as that is actually about giving up some sovereign control. Countries need to apply to join NATO. NATO doesn't try to get them in under any circumstances. Ukraine had been begging to join and NATO still hadn't let them. If NATO was an aggressive imperial force then Ukraine would have already been in it. The only real honest reason I can imagine Russia doesn't want countries to join NATO is because it wants the option left open to be able to attack them at some point.
azangru 4y ago
I am not sure this question describes the situation accurately, considering that the invaded country doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the invader wasn't threatening a nuclear attack against the invaded country. Your question might be rephrased to "what's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes, and you have nuclear weapons", or to "what's your response to a country that invades another country and threatens nuclear strikes if you come to its assistance". Which are both good questions, but different ones.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Not only have you avoided answering the parent's question, you have also avoided answering any of the alternative questions that you posed. Would you care to?
  - azangru 4y ago
    I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
    - zelphirkalt 4y ago
      > I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything. Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later. I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014. We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.
elenaferrantes 4y ago
Idk, maybe ask this to Japaneses or Panamanians.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  This is an absolutely ridiculous line of whataboutism that is historically ignorant and doesn’t deserve any serious response.
  - elenaferrantes 4y ago
    Yeah, sure. Like the song says : "do what I say, don’t do wha t I do" :-)
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      So you have a poor grasp of history and ethics, and, if you’re referencing the song I think you are, justify it with poorly understood song lyrics. I’m sure you are far from anything like a government official so I won’t lose sleep over it.

namdnay 4y ago

we tried that in the 30s. didn't work very well

azangru 4y ago
There were nuclear bombs in the 30s?
- thedorkknight 4y ago
  I think his comment was about appeasing psychopathic bullies because "give him what he wants, he won't go any further after that!" didn't work, not that there were nukes back then
choko 4y ago
Serious question: Do you really think that Russia poses that kind of threat? We've seen how woefully their military has performed. There is no chance that Russia would be able to start rolling through Europe the same way Germany did. Especially now that they are so depleted that they are conscripting. I'm not saying appeasement is the way, but comparing this situation to Germany in the 30s is a bit off the mark.
- namdnay 4y ago
  > We've seen how woefully their military has performed I guess the question is, would that military have performed as woefully if we had "avoided any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe"? Would Ukraine have been able to resist as well if we had ignored their cries for help?
- taylodl 4y ago
  No. I don't believe Russia is a credible nuclear threat. Nuclear warheads aren't "set it and forget it" devices, they require continual maintenance, maintenance Russia has demonstrated they're not doing with any of the rest of their materiel due to corruption so why should be believe they're doing so for their nuclear stockpile? I honestly believe the reason Putin and the Kremlin are saber rattling about nuclear war is they're hoping to threaten us with our memory of their previous nuclear might. That might is gone. Putin is the emperor with no clothes. If he weren't so vile I'd feel sorry for him for being so pathetic.

D_Alex 4y ago