5 ms·

Defense is not morally questionable. Particularly in the presence of adversaries who _are_ clearly morally questionable.

Razengan 3y ago
Everyone said the exact same shit for thousands of years.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Is your goal to support the idea or not? Universal acceptance of a moral perspective throughout history would typically be considered justification to continue accepting that perspective. Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.
ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
Of course, it's always "the others" who clearly are morally questionable.
- atemerev 3y ago
  I am saying this as the "other". I am Russian (though not living in the country anymore). My country has started an unforgivable war of aggression. It is my imperative to do anything I can to remedy this. Some things are quite morally clear.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    As also Russian I'm with you on this, let me get my share of downvotes
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > though not living in the country anymor What do you think about the new law regarding not issuing passports abroad? Will return or have another citizenship?
    - atemerev 3y ago
      The law is not there yet, the document was fake. But still it is possible. I can’t return, and I won’t be able to get a citizenship of the country I currently live in. Guess I will live as a stateless person.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        Same. Thinking to move somewhere that's less likely to deport a stateless person... Didn't know it's fake, thanks
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Yes, the aggressor would be the one to call out, not the defender.
  - breakfastduck 3y ago
    It's a rather large leap imo to actually respect the terminology of 'Defence' in that regard, completely ignoring their obvious engagement with offensive action.
  - vasco 3y ago
    That'd be simple if you could identify "the beginning", but normally in conflicts what happens is both sides think they're right due to some pre-existing claim.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Easy to resolve. Who started the aggression now? That's the guy. Done!
      - explaininjs 3y ago
        Yes, the unexpectedly effective brute force solution to the eternal bickering siblings problem: "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it!". Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.
- flyinglizard 3y ago
  If you want to live (and prosper), you can't put everyone's interests and morals at the same level as yours. There needs to be some self perseverance.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  Not always, but definitely in the Russia-Ukraine case it is.
Traubenfuchs 3y ago
One can go as far as to consider defense a moral imperative of free nations. Who knows whether Russia would have ever dared to attack Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes?
- atemerev 3y ago
  I fully agree. Defense is the moral imperative of free nations.
- sofixa 3y ago
  No, it would have not. Even under their super optimistic plans they expected to capture Ukraine within 3 days, which was still plenty of time to launch nukes But that is a moot question because there was no universe in which Ukraine keeps nuclear weapons. They didn't have control over the ones they inherited (KGB did), and while retrofitting them was possible... Ukraine after independence didn't have the money for anything, let alone reverse engineering nuclear weapons and maintaining them. Also, while on the micro level it might make sense for a certain country to have nukes to protect itself from attacks, on the macro for the world it doesn't. The higher amounts of countries with nuclear weapons, the bigger the risk something goes wrong - a crazy dictator decides to do a murder-suicide pact, poor maintenance leads to radiation leaks, etc. etc. I respect Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons to be on par with Israel and prevent the Americans and Saudis from invading them (reminder that high ranking American politicians and cabinet members have clearly and openly talked about war with Iran)... but it would be devastating to the region. Iran's regime isn't stable, has lots of enemies around (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the other Gulf monarchies), some of which don't hesitate at all to provoke and attack them. The risk of nukes flying if Iran has them is too great for the wider international community to accept it - which is why there was a deal with a carrot to get Iran to stop, which was working until the braindead Americans decided to kill it for no good reason. So now... nothing can be done to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons outside of an even more flagrant violation of Iran's sovereignty than what Israel has already done by assassinating top nuclear scientists and sabotaging their facilities.
  - baybal2 3y ago
flyinglizard 3y ago
Enforcing pax americana, even using aggressive means, is a moral cause in its own. The world under US control is more peaceful, more just and better to live in than any other conceivable alternative. Not all ideologies deserve equal foothold.
- atemerev 3y ago
  Aggression is not excusable. I am fond of American values, but unprovoked aggression is not one of them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Controversial to be sure. But I'd challenge down-voters to instead (additionally?) provide a framework of their envisioned "conceivable alternative" new world order which would be more peaceful, just, and better to live in.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    This is a healthy thought exercise. It's extremely easy to complain about the way that things are but difficult to envision something better. I red-pilled myself on a lot of issues by thinking like this regularly.
- sofixa 3y ago
  I'm sure that the millions of dead Iraqis, the embargoed Cubans, the millions of dead under brutal regimes sponsored by the US all over Latin America, Africa and Asia, the people kidnapped to be tortured by the CIA due to their name or watch type would be thrilled to hear about how peaceful, just and better to live things are. The US isn't a benevolent force for good, it's pure old capitalistic greed and realpolitik. That lots of good has happened thanks to it is mostly accidental.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Razengan 3y ago

Everyone said the exact same shit for thousands of years.

explaininjs 3y ago
Is your goal to support the idea or not? Universal acceptance of a moral perspective throughout history would typically be considered justification to continue accepting that perspective. Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago

Of course, it's always "the others" who clearly are morally questionable.

atemerev 3y ago
I am saying this as the "other". I am Russian (though not living in the country anymore). My country has started an unforgivable war of aggression. It is my imperative to do anything I can to remedy this. Some things are quite morally clear.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  As also Russian I'm with you on this, let me get my share of downvotes
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > though not living in the country anymor What do you think about the new law regarding not issuing passports abroad? Will return or have another citizenship?
  - atemerev 3y ago
    The law is not there yet, the document was fake. But still it is possible. I can’t return, and I won’t be able to get a citizenship of the country I currently live in. Guess I will live as a stateless person.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Same. Thinking to move somewhere that's less likely to deport a stateless person... Didn't know it's fake, thanks
explaininjs 3y ago
Yes, the aggressor would be the one to call out, not the defender.
- breakfastduck 3y ago
  It's a rather large leap imo to actually respect the terminology of 'Defence' in that regard, completely ignoring their obvious engagement with offensive action.
- vasco 3y ago
  That'd be simple if you could identify "the beginning", but normally in conflicts what happens is both sides think they're right due to some pre-existing claim.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Easy to resolve. Who started the aggression now? That's the guy. Done!
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      Yes, the unexpectedly effective brute force solution to the eternal bickering siblings problem: "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it!". Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.
flyinglizard 3y ago
If you want to live (and prosper), you can't put everyone's interests and morals at the same level as yours. There needs to be some self perseverance.
llamaimperative 3y ago
Not always, but definitely in the Russia-Ukraine case it is.

Traubenfuchs 3y ago

One can go as far as to consider defense a moral imperative of free nations. Who knows whether Russia would have ever dared to attack Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes?

atemerev 3y ago
I fully agree. Defense is the moral imperative of free nations.
sofixa 3y ago
No, it would have not. Even under their super optimistic plans they expected to capture Ukraine within 3 days, which was still plenty of time to launch nukes But that is a moot question because there was no universe in which Ukraine keeps nuclear weapons. They didn't have control over the ones they inherited (KGB did), and while retrofitting them was possible... Ukraine after independence didn't have the money for anything, let alone reverse engineering nuclear weapons and maintaining them. Also, while on the micro level it might make sense for a certain country to have nukes to protect itself from attacks, on the macro for the world it doesn't. The higher amounts of countries with nuclear weapons, the bigger the risk something goes wrong - a crazy dictator decides to do a murder-suicide pact, poor maintenance leads to radiation leaks, etc. etc. I respect Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons to be on par with Israel and prevent the Americans and Saudis from invading them (reminder that high ranking American politicians and cabinet members have clearly and openly talked about war with Iran)... but it would be devastating to the region. Iran's regime isn't stable, has lots of enemies around (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the other Gulf monarchies), some of which don't hesitate at all to provoke and attack them. The risk of nukes flying if Iran has them is too great for the wider international community to accept it - which is why there was a deal with a carrot to get Iran to stop, which was working until the braindead Americans decided to kill it for no good reason. So now... nothing can be done to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons outside of an even more flagrant violation of Iran's sovereignty than what Israel has already done by assassinating top nuclear scientists and sabotaging their facilities.
- baybal2 3y ago

flyinglizard 3y ago

Enforcing pax americana, even using aggressive means, is a moral cause in its own. The world under US control is more peaceful, more just and better to live in than any other conceivable alternative. Not all ideologies deserve equal foothold.

atemerev 3y ago
Aggression is not excusable. I am fond of American values, but unprovoked aggression is not one of them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
explaininjs 3y ago
Controversial to be sure. But I'd challenge down-voters to instead (additionally?) provide a framework of their envisioned "conceivable alternative" new world order which would be more peaceful, just, and better to live in.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  This is a healthy thought exercise. It's extremely easy to complain about the way that things are but difficult to envision something better. I red-pilled myself on a lot of issues by thinking like this regularly.
sofixa 3y ago
I'm sure that the millions of dead Iraqis, the embargoed Cubans, the millions of dead under brutal regimes sponsored by the US all over Latin America, Africa and Asia, the people kidnapped to be tortured by the CIA due to their name or watch type would be thrilled to hear about how peaceful, just and better to live things are. The US isn't a benevolent force for good, it's pure old capitalistic greed and realpolitik. That lots of good has happened thanks to it is mostly accidental.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]