5 ms·

What an extraordinarily reckless article.

it_citizen 3y ago
Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? I don't see why it would be reckless to consider the possibility of the poor state of the russian nuclear arsenal. The article even points that the tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons are probably just fine. It doesn't mean that the west is suddenly going to suddenly going to act as if russia didn't have nuclear weapons.
- peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
  > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? Way to twist things around. No, it's reckless because you're gambling about the end of the world.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    Way to twist things around. The article does not suggest anything like that. Seems to me you are reading about a pretty factual article about the cost of maintenance of nukes but interpreting it as « let’s declare war to Russia, their arsenal probably doesn’t work ».
    - peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - laserdancepony 3y ago
    Reporting on something, even a possibility, is not gambling on an outcome.
- roughly 3y ago
  Because memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) get around and because people are not coldly rational, and if you’d like citations, I point you to the entirety of US foreign relations for the last two decades at least. The amount of times we’ve been pretty sure our opponent is weaker than they are ought be sufficient to suggest that speculating that our current opponent’s stock of weapons of mass destruction isn’t sufficient to end complex life on the planet carries risk.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- CuteDinosaur 3y ago
  > Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? God, what a reckless sentence.
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Putin has nothing better to do than reading random blogs. He could also setup Twitter account and threaten nuking random countries when Medvedev is in drunken coma and can't do it himself.
    - it_citizen 3y ago
      Fun fact: it is said that Putin never uses the internet.
      - majewsky 3y ago
        Well, not in the direct sense of the word "use", but other than that...
- ufmace 3y ago
  Because it encourages people on our side to advocate for things that are a high risk of leading to a nuclear exchange. I've already seen a lot of people do this in a lot of places. It's probably not a good idea to encourage them.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    I understand the dilemma, but should we forbid ourselves to discuss some topics? It kind of remember me how the possibility of covid lab leak got discredited early on in the Lancet without any proof and then backfired spectacularly, creating doubts about the scientific community in the population. I don’t think thought censorship ever helps, we have to push for nuanced views.
lordnacho 3y ago
Nah, it's just putting into words what everyone is already thinking. When has anyone made decisions about war without considering that their true strength might be lower than what they or the adversary believed? It's implicit in any threat that it might be a bluff.

Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? I don't see why it would be reckless to consider the possibility of the poor state of the russian nuclear arsenal. The article even points that the tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons are probably just fine. It doesn't mean that the west is suddenly going to suddenly going to act as if russia didn't have nuclear weapons.

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
> Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? Way to twist things around. No, it's reckless because you're gambling about the end of the world.
- it_citizen 3y ago
  Way to twist things around. The article does not suggest anything like that. Seems to me you are reading about a pretty factual article about the cost of maintenance of nukes but interpreting it as « let’s declare war to Russia, their arsenal probably doesn’t work ».
  - peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
    [flagged]
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  Reporting on something, even a possibility, is not gambling on an outcome.
roughly 3y ago
Because memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) get around and because people are not coldly rational, and if you’d like citations, I point you to the entirety of US foreign relations for the last two decades at least. The amount of times we’ve been pretty sure our opponent is weaker than they are ought be sufficient to suggest that speculating that our current opponent’s stock of weapons of mass destruction isn’t sufficient to end complex life on the planet carries risk.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CuteDinosaur 3y ago
> Because Putin might see it and nuke us to prove us wrong? God, what a reckless sentence.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Putin has nothing better to do than reading random blogs. He could also setup Twitter account and threaten nuking random countries when Medvedev is in drunken coma and can't do it himself.
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    Fun fact: it is said that Putin never uses the internet.
    - majewsky 3y ago
      Well, not in the direct sense of the word "use", but other than that...
ufmace 3y ago
Because it encourages people on our side to advocate for things that are a high risk of leading to a nuclear exchange. I've already seen a lot of people do this in a lot of places. It's probably not a good idea to encourage them.
- it_citizen 3y ago
  I understand the dilemma, but should we forbid ourselves to discuss some topics? It kind of remember me how the possibility of covid lab leak got discredited early on in the Lancet without any proof and then backfired spectacularly, creating doubts about the scientific community in the population. I don’t think thought censorship ever helps, we have to push for nuanced views.

lordnacho 3y ago

Nah, it's just putting into words what everyone is already thinking. When has anyone made decisions about war without considering that their true strength might be lower than what they or the adversary believed? It's implicit in any threat that it might be a bluff.