5 ms·

To the contrary, retaliation is game-theoretically sound. You can't allow an adversary to take what they want and win every battle "because they have nuclear we

by ericb 2y ago

To the contrary, retaliation is game-theoretically sound. You can't allow an adversary to take what they want and win every battle "because they have nuclear weapons" without capitulating world domination to that adversary. This is like playing poker and folding every hand--you will quickly lose everything. World War 2, and the Sudetenland proved this very well--you can't forestall war by gifting land to greedy dictators, it just makes them hungrier. The US has to retaliate, as without doing so, it will hand world-domination to Russia, China and any two-bit dictatorship willing to use nukes. Moreover, Russia has repeatedly threatened European NATO members, and those members would rather the battle be fought in Ukraine than on their own turf.

armitron 2y ago
> You can't allow an adversary to take what they want and win every battle "because they have nuclear weapons" without capitulating world domination to that adversary. Strawman. Ukraine is not in NATO and is thus forced to keep neighboring Russia happy. That's just realpolitik. US can not and will not retaliate as that would be WW3. On the flip side, Russia will not attack NATO countries as that would also be WW3. The only real losers here are primarily Ukraine which is being destroyed and Europe which has to keep doing what US wants since it's dependent on the latter for defense.
- ericb 2y ago
  > The only real losers here are primarily Ukraine which is being destroyed and Europe which has to keep doing what US wants since it's dependent on the latter for defense. Your thinking in this area lacks depth. Think about what happens next after Russia is handed Ukraine. And after that.
- 0dayz 2y ago
  >Strawman. Ukraine is not in NATO and is thus forced to keep neighboring Russia happy. That's just realpolitik. US can not and will not retaliate as that would be WW3. On the flip side, Russia will not attack NATO countries as that would also be WW3. And yet USA has had no issue fighting against the soviets during Vietnam and Korean war. You can try and be armchair president all day long but the truth doesn't favor your argument.

by ericb 2y ago

armitron 2y ago

> You can't allow an adversary to take what they want and win every battle "because they have nuclear weapons" without capitulating world domination to that adversary. Strawman. Ukraine is not in NATO and is thus forced to keep neighboring Russia happy. That's just realpolitik. US can not and will not retaliate as that would be WW3. On the flip side, Russia will not attack NATO countries as that would also be WW3. The only real losers here are primarily Ukraine which is being destroyed and Europe which has to keep doing what US wants since it's dependent on the latter for defense.

ericb 2y ago
> The only real losers here are primarily Ukraine which is being destroyed and Europe which has to keep doing what US wants since it's dependent on the latter for defense. Your thinking in this area lacks depth. Think about what happens next after Russia is handed Ukraine. And after that.
0dayz 2y ago
>Strawman. Ukraine is not in NATO and is thus forced to keep neighboring Russia happy. That's just realpolitik. US can not and will not retaliate as that would be WW3. On the flip side, Russia will not attack NATO countries as that would also be WW3. And yet USA has had no issue fighting against the soviets during Vietnam and Korean war. You can try and be armchair president all day long but the truth doesn't favor your argument.