5 ms·
This argument is toxic.
by progrus 3y ago
This argument is toxic.
- benj111 3y agoHow so? Are we all supposed to pretend that we think that Russia's nukes work for... Reasons?
- kergonath 3y agoWe know they worked at some point. We have no idea how well they work now (though I assume that the CIA has a good idea of how they were maintained, judging from the leaks). So, it’s not pretending: statistically, some of them will work. Assuming they do not work at all is reckless. They have thousands of nuclear warheads; if only 1% of them work that’s still tenths of weapons able to delete a large city each. So regardless of the superiority one might feel, underestimating the opponents when the stakes are so high is… suboptimal.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoSince WWII the west has perused a military strategy known as brinksmanship. They want to extract maximum possible concessions with threats of attack, and removing internal opposition to trivial wars is a means of maximizing the threat of war with the US.
- benj111 3y agoThere's a difference between reckless and toxic though. I don't think anyones advocating firing a few nukes at Russia on the basis they can't retaliate, so I don't see decision as being reckless.
- laserdancepony 3y agoDefine your adjective, otherwise no one is able to follow. "Toxic" like in "toxic" masculinity or in toxic chemical?
- progrus 3y agoToxic as in will make cities getting vaporized more likely, if it catches on.