5 ms·

Um... Good. Given the amount of posturing on both sides, the actual shooting war in Ukraine and the nuclear arsenals involved, it seems like a public service t

Um... Good. Given the amount of posturing on both sides, the actual shooting war in Ukraine and the nuclear arsenals involved, it seems like a public service to facilitate both sides actually knowing what the other side actually thinks and what their actual red lines are.

automatic6131 3y ago
[flagged]
- juicypt 3y ago
  The parent comment could be the beginning of an interesting discussion on cold war dynamics. Wouldn't you rather engage with that and gain something from the discussion, than take a cheap shot at the author for a quick giggle?
  - vuln 3y ago
    The cheap shot requires zero critical thinking so you’ll find a certain type of people drawn to that character defect.
qwytw 3y ago
You're assuming (for some unknown reason) that both sides are acting rationally? Would you care to elaborate on that?
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I don't think I am, am I? Sorry if I am missing your point. I am just saying you want to know whether they're actually irrational or just pretending (which is often rational). And when Putin says "X is a red line" you want to KNOW whether he means it or not. And it's likely a good thing for him to know the same about Biden. Good in this context is defined as avoiding nuclear war. Whether it means winning a particular point in Ukraine or not... Sorry Ukraine.
  - _fat_santa 3y ago
    I would make a counterargument and say the "big stuff" (ie Nuclear War) is pretty well known by all sides. For the "big stuff" everyone from world leaders to regular folks who just pay attention to the news know because it gets brought up practically every day in the context of the war.
    - LatteLazy 3y ago
      Well that depends right? I don't think anyone WANTS a nuclear exchange. But we're escalating pretty rapidly. A year ago we were "no lethal aid", now we're giving Ukraine F 16s. If Putin said "do that and I'll blow them the fuck up on the way over", who he be serious or not? If he tried would we retaliate and how? If a conventional missile strike fails will he hit it with an ICBM (much harder to intercept)? If so, we will not know whether it is nuclear armed until it hits. So do we (nuclear) strike back or just take the first hit? And if we hit back is Russia's early warning system smart enough to tell whether we're using a nuke? And all of this assumes 1000s of individual soldiers who we rely on to man these systems, report information and make no mistakes will be 100% on it... And these are all rational actions by rational actors none of whom actually wants a nuclear exchange right? And if someone on either side is NOT rational. Then there is even more need to know what it actually happening right? It would be nice to have answers to all of these questions without having to try them out and see...
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > But we're escalating pretty rapidly. A year ago we were "no lethal aid", now we're giving Ukraine F 16s. I don't know who the 'we' is in this scenario but the west has been giving Ukraine lethal aid ever since 2017.
        LatteLazy 3y ago
        The earliest I am aware of is June 2020 (some small patrol boats) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain... Happy to be corrected. I believe that before then we were limited ourselves to "non-lethal aid" like radios and kevlar...

automatic6131 3y ago

[flagged]

juicypt 3y ago
The parent comment could be the beginning of an interesting discussion on cold war dynamics. Wouldn't you rather engage with that and gain something from the discussion, than take a cheap shot at the author for a quick giggle?
- vuln 3y ago
  The cheap shot requires zero critical thinking so you’ll find a certain type of people drawn to that character defect.

qwytw 3y ago

You're assuming (for some unknown reason) that both sides are acting rationally? Would you care to elaborate on that?

LatteLazy 3y ago
I don't think I am, am I? Sorry if I am missing your point. I am just saying you want to know whether they're actually irrational or just pretending (which is often rational). And when Putin says "X is a red line" you want to KNOW whether he means it or not. And it's likely a good thing for him to know the same about Biden. Good in this context is defined as avoiding nuclear war. Whether it means winning a particular point in Ukraine or not... Sorry Ukraine.
- _fat_santa 3y ago
  I would make a counterargument and say the "big stuff" (ie Nuclear War) is pretty well known by all sides. For the "big stuff" everyone from world leaders to regular folks who just pay attention to the news know because it gets brought up practically every day in the context of the war.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    Well that depends right? I don't think anyone WANTS a nuclear exchange. But we're escalating pretty rapidly. A year ago we were "no lethal aid", now we're giving Ukraine F 16s. If Putin said "do that and I'll blow them the fuck up on the way over", who he be serious or not? If he tried would we retaliate and how? If a conventional missile strike fails will he hit it with an ICBM (much harder to intercept)? If so, we will not know whether it is nuclear armed until it hits. So do we (nuclear) strike back or just take the first hit? And if we hit back is Russia's early warning system smart enough to tell whether we're using a nuke? And all of this assumes 1000s of individual soldiers who we rely on to man these systems, report information and make no mistakes will be 100% on it... And these are all rational actions by rational actors none of whom actually wants a nuclear exchange right? And if someone on either side is NOT rational. Then there is even more need to know what it actually happening right? It would be nice to have answers to all of these questions without having to try them out and see...
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > But we're escalating pretty rapidly. A year ago we were "no lethal aid", now we're giving Ukraine F 16s. I don't know who the 'we' is in this scenario but the west has been giving Ukraine lethal aid ever since 2017.
      - LatteLazy 3y ago
        The earliest I am aware of is June 2020 (some small patrol boats) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain... Happy to be corrected. I believe that before then we were limited ourselves to "non-lethal aid" like radios and kevlar...