4 ms·

You are taking the wrong lesson. Russia has countless times used the threat of nuclear escalation to its advantage. Many western governments (and zealots like M

You are taking the wrong lesson. Russia has countless times used the threat of nuclear escalation to its advantage. Many western governments (and zealots like Musk) are very hesitant in giving aid to the Ukrainian defense effort citing nuclear escalation. Now imagine a world where Russia didn’t have nukes, that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing), how far do you think Russia would go then without being shielded by this threat? At the very least western nations wouldn’t have their favorite excuse for why they don’t send their so many weapons and so many armies to actually defend a nation under an invasion.

logicchains 3y ago
> that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing This is just wishful thinking. All countries agreeing to give up their nukes is about as likely as all countries agreeing never to go to war again because it's a net negative; not going to happen.
- runarberg 3y ago
  My parent is also wishful thinking. There is no timeline where Ukraine keeps their nukes and the world is just OK with it. Ukraine would need to be far more authoritarian and non-EU oriented if it wanted to keep their nukes. It would basically need to be more like Belarus. And at that point there is no world where they want to break away from Russian influence and enter the EU influence.
sylware 3y ago
If Ukraine had nukes, Putin's regime would have stayed put.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- runarberg 3y ago
  Yes that was the lesson you took from this, however I see a different more applicable lesson that nukes are actually more dangerous than we gave them credit for prior to the invasion. Not only do they have the power to destroy the world many times over, but they also have a deterrence power which empowers nuclear powers to engage in wars of aggression without fearing the consequences. In other words, there are two lessons here. The one you took from this, is that nations can use nukes to deter invasion, and that denuclearizing puts them at greater risks of being invaded. You denuclearizing as a mistake. My lesson is that the real mistake was to allow Russia to keep their nukes, and to keep nuclear armed nations. South Africa denuclearized just fine and hasn’t been invaded. If the world had denuclearized at the same time, Ukraine’s denuclearization would have yielded the same success.
  - sylware 3y ago
    I severely disagree: a full denuclearization means wars all over again. Si vis pacem, para bellum
    - runarberg 3y ago
      The theory that nuclear weapons is the reason for the relative peace of our era is an oft cited one but without much evidence. There are multiple alternatives which are equally—if not more—likely to explain it better. Things like human rights, democracy, decolonization, universal education, etc. If this was a bet, I wager the proliferation of democracies and decolonization is a much better explanation for why there are fewer wars, than the binary of whether nuclear weapons exist or not.
      - sylware 3y ago
        As for many things, there are several parameters, worse, not independent parameters. Remove the "Nukes" parameter, and all the other parameters get nullified, or could not even get realization the way it is happening in our nuke-ified world. We are talking a massive butterfly/domino effect. WWIII would have happen without nukes, or we better start to believe the earth is flat.

logicchains 3y ago

> that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing This is just wishful thinking. All countries agreeing to give up their nukes is about as likely as all countries agreeing never to go to war again because it's a net negative; not going to happen.

runarberg 3y ago
My parent is also wishful thinking. There is no timeline where Ukraine keeps their nukes and the world is just OK with it. Ukraine would need to be far more authoritarian and non-EU oriented if it wanted to keep their nukes. It would basically need to be more like Belarus. And at that point there is no world where they want to break away from Russian influence and enter the EU influence.

sylware 3y ago

If Ukraine had nukes, Putin's regime would have stayed put.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
runarberg 3y ago
Yes that was the lesson you took from this, however I see a different more applicable lesson that nukes are actually more dangerous than we gave them credit for prior to the invasion. Not only do they have the power to destroy the world many times over, but they also have a deterrence power which empowers nuclear powers to engage in wars of aggression without fearing the consequences. In other words, there are two lessons here. The one you took from this, is that nations can use nukes to deter invasion, and that denuclearizing puts them at greater risks of being invaded. You denuclearizing as a mistake. My lesson is that the real mistake was to allow Russia to keep their nukes, and to keep nuclear armed nations. South Africa denuclearized just fine and hasn’t been invaded. If the world had denuclearized at the same time, Ukraine’s denuclearization would have yielded the same success.
- sylware 3y ago
  I severely disagree: a full denuclearization means wars all over again. Si vis pacem, para bellum
  - runarberg 3y ago
    The theory that nuclear weapons is the reason for the relative peace of our era is an oft cited one but without much evidence. There are multiple alternatives which are equally—if not more—likely to explain it better. Things like human rights, democracy, decolonization, universal education, etc. If this was a bet, I wager the proliferation of democracies and decolonization is a much better explanation for why there are fewer wars, than the binary of whether nuclear weapons exist or not.
    - sylware 3y ago
      As for many things, there are several parameters, worse, not independent parameters. Remove the "Nukes" parameter, and all the other parameters get nullified, or could not even get realization the way it is happening in our nuke-ified world. We are talking a massive butterfly/domino effect. WWIII would have happen without nukes, or we better start to believe the earth is flat.