3 ms·

So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the

So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons [...] when the very existence of the state is put under threat. I would think twice if hitting Russia as hard as possible - whether militarily or economically - is really in the best interest of everyone. It is certainly in the best interest of the USA, the weaker Russia becomes, the better, more energy to spend on China, but I am very unsure that hitting Russia as hard as possible is in the best interest of Ukraine.

mindslight 4y ago
The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"
- H8crilA 4y ago
  Exactly. If this isn't respected you can be sure that Japan and a lot of other countries are going to produce nukes on a short notice.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    What about the Iraq war? A Power Point with made up stuff is seemingly enough reason for a nuclear super power to invade a non-nuclear state and kill its head of state without due process. Where were the sanctions against the USA? Where were the weapons shipments in support of Iraq? Where were the worries about nuclear proliferation to be protected from that kind of shit? And yes, I said what about, so let me be clear before you write anything about Whataboutism. I can accept a world with shitty rules where accumulating enough weapons grants you an unlimited stack of get-out-of-jail-free cards, but much worse than shitty rules are different rules for different players, that is truly unfair. Let's just tell Putin that he did a bad thing and then move on as if nothing happened. Or would it not be better if we opposed the USA - and any other country doing stupid shit - as vigorously as we oppose Putin?
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      I think that Iraq second time was an atrocity too. You can debate the scale but not the basic fact. The first time was certainly acceptable though, even necessary. I am not in a position to help the Iraqis today but I am in a position to help the Ukrainians, by advocating for their victory and by direct help out of my own pocket. In general those things should be considered separately, there is no simple connection between them. But yes America got away way too easily. About nukes - the attacking coalition has simply never threatened the usage of nukes. You can also note that during the Vietnam war there was an American general that wanted to fix their military failure with nukes, and he was immediately dismissed from his job.
- danbruc 4y ago
  I guess we can all agree that in an ideal world no country should attack any other country, no matter whether they have conventional weapons or nuclear weapons or no military at all. Back in the real world you have to make a tough decision - your ideals versus your wellbeing. You can keep pushing Russia, maybe it will eventually cave in, fine. But what if not? What if Russia eventually tells you in no uncertain terms, one more weapons shipment and we will go nuclear? Do you call and find out whether they bluff or nuke Ukraine? What if they actually do it? Are you willing to escalate from a proxy war with Russia to a war with Russia? Are you willing to make it a nuclear war?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    I believe the current answer is yes. Certainly the Ukrainians are on board with this plan. The current damage and loss of life and health in Ukraine is already larger than a megaton bomb placed over a large-ish city. Also, the US & NATO voiced publicly their planned response to the usage of a much smaller (kiloton range) nuclear device, namely the complete destruction of the Black Sea Fleet. They did so in the usual way of making former generals speak to the media. It is also important to notice that it's not US/NATO/whoever's decision. The Ukrainians will fight with whatever they have available, a short talk with anyone in the country makes this crystal clear.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Either Putin is a reasonable man who can be negotiated with, or a man who is willing to use nuclear weapons to stave off a loss in a war on foreign soil he started. It could also be neither of these, but it cannot be both.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You're brushed aside the game-theoretic truth in favor of continuing to push this self-defeating what-if worry narrative. Taken to the absurd, your "tough decision" would allow a single madman to ransom the entire world. In the "real world", Ukraine seems quite willing to face the possibility of being nuked - if they were not, they would have already surrendered to the bully with the nukes. And it's the Ukrainians ultimately making the decision to keep defending themselves or not, regardless of this specious reference to "proxy war". Furthermore, offensive nuclear use by Russia would most likely invite an overwhelming conventional retaliation by US and NATO forces, with the goal of preempting Russia from ever doing such a thing again. The alternative would be to just sit back and watch Russia conquer ever-more westward, while suffering the same ongoing "what if" worry.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mindslight 4y ago

The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"

H8crilA 4y ago
Exactly. If this isn't respected you can be sure that Japan and a lot of other countries are going to produce nukes on a short notice.
- danbruc 4y ago
  What about the Iraq war? A Power Point with made up stuff is seemingly enough reason for a nuclear super power to invade a non-nuclear state and kill its head of state without due process. Where were the sanctions against the USA? Where were the weapons shipments in support of Iraq? Where were the worries about nuclear proliferation to be protected from that kind of shit? And yes, I said what about, so let me be clear before you write anything about Whataboutism. I can accept a world with shitty rules where accumulating enough weapons grants you an unlimited stack of get-out-of-jail-free cards, but much worse than shitty rules are different rules for different players, that is truly unfair. Let's just tell Putin that he did a bad thing and then move on as if nothing happened. Or would it not be better if we opposed the USA - and any other country doing stupid shit - as vigorously as we oppose Putin?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    I think that Iraq second time was an atrocity too. You can debate the scale but not the basic fact. The first time was certainly acceptable though, even necessary. I am not in a position to help the Iraqis today but I am in a position to help the Ukrainians, by advocating for their victory and by direct help out of my own pocket. In general those things should be considered separately, there is no simple connection between them. But yes America got away way too easily. About nukes - the attacking coalition has simply never threatened the usage of nukes. You can also note that during the Vietnam war there was an American general that wanted to fix their military failure with nukes, and he was immediately dismissed from his job.
danbruc 4y ago
I guess we can all agree that in an ideal world no country should attack any other country, no matter whether they have conventional weapons or nuclear weapons or no military at all. Back in the real world you have to make a tough decision - your ideals versus your wellbeing. You can keep pushing Russia, maybe it will eventually cave in, fine. But what if not? What if Russia eventually tells you in no uncertain terms, one more weapons shipment and we will go nuclear? Do you call and find out whether they bluff or nuke Ukraine? What if they actually do it? Are you willing to escalate from a proxy war with Russia to a war with Russia? Are you willing to make it a nuclear war?
- H8crilA 4y ago
  I believe the current answer is yes. Certainly the Ukrainians are on board with this plan. The current damage and loss of life and health in Ukraine is already larger than a megaton bomb placed over a large-ish city. Also, the US & NATO voiced publicly their planned response to the usage of a much smaller (kiloton range) nuclear device, namely the complete destruction of the Black Sea Fleet. They did so in the usual way of making former generals speak to the media. It is also important to notice that it's not US/NATO/whoever's decision. The Ukrainians will fight with whatever they have available, a short talk with anyone in the country makes this crystal clear.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Either Putin is a reasonable man who can be negotiated with, or a man who is willing to use nuclear weapons to stave off a loss in a war on foreign soil he started. It could also be neither of these, but it cannot be both.
- mindslight 4y ago
  You're brushed aside the game-theoretic truth in favor of continuing to push this self-defeating what-if worry narrative. Taken to the absurd, your "tough decision" would allow a single madman to ransom the entire world. In the "real world", Ukraine seems quite willing to face the possibility of being nuked - if they were not, they would have already surrendered to the bully with the nukes. And it's the Ukrainians ultimately making the decision to keep defending themselves or not, regardless of this specious reference to "proxy war". Furthermore, offensive nuclear use by Russia would most likely invite an overwhelming conventional retaliation by US and NATO forces, with the goal of preempting Russia from ever doing such a thing again. The alternative would be to just sit back and watch Russia conquer ever-more westward, while suffering the same ongoing "what if" worry.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]