2 ms·
Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though? Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their d
by _heimdall 2y ago
Do we really want to push everyone to the brink and see who is and isn't willing to use nukes though?
Russia has mobile ICBMs and, if I'm not mistaken, their deadman switch system is still in use.
NATO wouldn't be able to take out Russia's entire nuclear capability before Russia responds. Even if we technically could, that's absolutely not a world I would want to live in anyway.
- ajuc 2y agoThe alternative is a new nuclear arms race. Look at it from the POV of neighbors of China and Russia if UN and NATO backs down from nuclear blackmail. In that world security guarantees mean nothing. If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. The only chance to survive is to build your own nukes. Fast forward a few decades and you have like 50 countries with nukes. Good luck maintaining peace then. The problem with appeasement is that people ignore the alternative costs. It always looks good when you assume only your actions have consequences. But inaction also have consequences - you can't just assume status quo remains when you do nothing.
- protomolecule 2y ago>If a nuclear power invades you - the world leaves you to die. You mean like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria? >The problem with appeasement Putin decided two years ago that he is done appeasing the West and look where we are now.
- _heimdall 2y agoIf we're leaning into the tragedy of the commons problem, sure we're all screwed no matter what. We only have another arms race if countries decide to join the race.