4 ms·

>"PPP's primary purpose is living standard comparisons" Which is the only thing that matters to people. >"When in a war, you are buying ammunition and weaponr

by FpUser 2y ago

>"PPP's primary purpose is living standard comparisons" Which is the only thing that matters to people. >"When in a war, you are buying ammunition and weaponry with USD, not PPP. When there's a energy shock, you are importing oil and gas with USD, not PPP. When you are in a AI race, you are buying GPUs with USD, not PPP." Thank you for confirming the purpose of USD - make every other country into a servant. Practically speaking nobody has attacked the EU country. Rather quite the opposite. EU also happens to have their own weaponry. And in a worst case they can just produce whole bunch of nukes and declare simple policy: do not attack us or else you will be nuked.

GartzenDeHaes 2y ago
> they can just produce whole bunch of nukes That might be a bit difficult with no uranium reserves. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
> do not attack us or else you will be nuked This sentiment has been expressed a few times in this thread now. Is it really true? From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad. The default assumption of people being rational means it should be quite safe to attack despite talks of nuclear retaliation.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad. It kind of depends on which countries you're talking about. The US and Russia have enough nukes that if they're involved, that's definitely true. But what about Pakistan? Or Israel? There are several nuclear powers who would have a hard time devastating a single country, not to mention the entire world.
  - CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
    > what about Pakistan First source I found now: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680049?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1... > the climatic effects of the smoke produced by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would not be confined to the subcontinent, or even to Asia. Those effects would be enormous and global in scope.
- polotics 2y ago
  There are very well studied escalation scenarios where high altitude strikes, acting basically as EMPs, with good meteorological information taken into account to manage fallout, can mean nukes can come into play and be effective as defense. Anyways the way things are going we have a non-zero chance of testing the hypothesis.
anonylizard 2y ago
People like you, is why Europe passed on global leadership to the USA. Ukraine can be burning on your front door, and you still think EU is safe. Guess what, EU is safe only because of NATO. Russia has attacked basically every neighboring country in Europe that is not in NATO. Nukes don't work against salami slicing. Russia takes Estonia tomorrow, are you going to throw a nuke against Russia? No, you'll won't risk annihilation for Estonia, so you'll ignore it. So the next day Russia takes Latvia. And so on so forth. The only way of fighting salami slicing is applying proportional response, which requires a conventional army. Also, Ukraine living standards isn't very high right now, regardless what their PPP is, and getting conquered by Russia, means you get used as battle-slaved for the next conquest. This snowball tactic was innovated by the Mongols, using the conquered people as cannon fodder for the next war.
- pixl97 2y ago
  Yes Minister had 'funny' skit back in the day about Salami Tactics demonstrating this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
- mik1998 2y ago
  > Russia has attacked basically every neighboring country in Europe that is not in NATO. What are you talking about? Russia hasn't invaded anyone in Europe except Ukraine since WW2
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    Hungary and Czechoslovakia have been invaded once more by Russia decades after the WW2 invasion (1956 & 1968), even if you do not count the Caucasian countries as European. Before that, there were threats to invade Tito's Yugoslavia, but those have been not accomplished.
  - dralley 2y ago
    Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Moldova, Ukraine, arguably Belarus in 2020. Plus an attempted coup in Montenegro.
  - 2y ago
pixl97 2y ago
Salami tactics puts you in a losing position if your only option is nukes. Your enemy will play the Hungry game of buying off politicians and importing as many loyalists as they can in your country. Then they'll "democratically" vote in authoritarianism. Then they'll start on the next slice.

by FpUser 2y ago

GartzenDeHaes 2y ago

> they can just produce whole bunch of nukes That might be a bit difficult with no uranium reserves. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

CuriousSkeptic 2y ago

> do not attack us or else you will be nuked This sentiment has been expressed a few times in this thread now. Is it really true? From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad. The default assumption of people being rational means it should be quite safe to attack despite talks of nuclear retaliation.

nordsieck 2y ago
> From my understanding nuclear war at any scale will be devastating for the entire planet, not just the aggressor. So the threat of nuclear retaliation hinges on the aggressor believing the defender to be either be suicidal a or mad. It kind of depends on which countries you're talking about. The US and Russia have enough nukes that if they're involved, that's definitely true. But what about Pakistan? Or Israel? There are several nuclear powers who would have a hard time devastating a single country, not to mention the entire world.
- CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
  > what about Pakistan First source I found now: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680049?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1... > the climatic effects of the smoke produced by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would not be confined to the subcontinent, or even to Asia. Those effects would be enormous and global in scope.
polotics 2y ago
There are very well studied escalation scenarios where high altitude strikes, acting basically as EMPs, with good meteorological information taken into account to manage fallout, can mean nukes can come into play and be effective as defense. Anyways the way things are going we have a non-zero chance of testing the hypothesis.

anonylizard 2y ago

People like you, is why Europe passed on global leadership to the USA. Ukraine can be burning on your front door, and you still think EU is safe. Guess what, EU is safe only because of NATO. Russia has attacked basically every neighboring country in Europe that is not in NATO. Nukes don't work against salami slicing. Russia takes Estonia tomorrow, are you going to throw a nuke against Russia? No, you'll won't risk annihilation for Estonia, so you'll ignore it. So the next day Russia takes Latvia. And so on so forth. The only way of fighting salami slicing is applying proportional response, which requires a conventional army. Also, Ukraine living standards isn't very high right now, regardless what their PPP is, and getting conquered by Russia, means you get used as battle-slaved for the next conquest. This snowball tactic was innovated by the Mongols, using the conquered people as cannon fodder for the next war.

pixl97 2y ago
Yes Minister had 'funny' skit back in the day about Salami Tactics demonstrating this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
mik1998 2y ago
> Russia has attacked basically every neighboring country in Europe that is not in NATO. What are you talking about? Russia hasn't invaded anyone in Europe except Ukraine since WW2
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Hungary and Czechoslovakia have been invaded once more by Russia decades after the WW2 invasion (1956 & 1968), even if you do not count the Caucasian countries as European. Before that, there were threats to invade Tito's Yugoslavia, but those have been not accomplished.
- dralley 2y ago
  Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Moldova, Ukraine, arguably Belarus in 2020. Plus an attempted coup in Montenegro.
- 2y ago

pixl97 2y ago

Salami tactics puts you in a losing position if your only option is nukes. Your enemy will play the Hungry game of buying off politicians and importing as many loyalists as they can in your country. Then they'll "democratically" vote in authoritarianism. Then they'll start on the next slice.