4 ms·

> Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat

> Whatever side is losing will naturally convince themselves that the cost of the risk of nuclear escalation is less than the cost of accepting outright defeat Then just don't put them on death ground. If they have a way out, with loss of prestige and resources, but still staying in power, they will take it. India and Pakistan have had border clashes when both countries already had nukes. It was close and very dangerous, but it is still a counter-example to claim that every war between nuclear nations is just automatically bound to become a nuclear war.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  [redacted]
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I also note that the discussion was about Russia vs. Poland (a NATO member), which is rather a different situation than Russia vs. Ukraine. Your reply is therefore a non sequitur as well as a rather shady rhetorical move. All that said, I do in fact support giving Ukraine what it needs in order to defend itself. I think that is in fact a worthy and noble goal.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I misread you (having been triggered by things other people have been saying about the topic). My mistake, but it was not intended rhetorically.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Yeah, I was just catching up on one of the branches of the conversation that have been triggering you. I, um, understand why you might be triggered... And, you know, I've never over-reacted or misinterpreted someone. Never. Um... at least not today... um, well, uh... I also was a bit hair-trigger in my reply to you. In particular, you gave pphysch more grace (the first time) than I gave you.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        No worries + thanks for clarifying. I do need to remind myself to slow down and check both GP and parent before responding (which is what I didn't do here), so it's all good, really.
- golergka 2y ago
  > In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia. Oh, I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I think you could occupy as much as 80% of Russia. As long as you make sure that Putin and his friends were left alive and in charge of the remaining 20%, they wouldn't do a thing.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Current Russian nuclear doctrine says otherwise. I do not want to push on that to see if they're bluffing, thanks.
somenameforme 2y ago
You're failing to consider the fundamental point. The reason countries escalate is because they think it will bring victory. You can see the exact thing happening in Ukraine today. There have been a million 'game changers'. What happens when those game changers fail to change the game? Further escalation. And the losing side will often delude themselves to this reality til long after it's become an inescapable truth. For instance during WW2 Nazi propaganda continued running and claiming imminent victory all the way up until the Fall of Berlin, even after Hitler's death - who was praised as having died in a glorious battle against Bolshevism. People who listened to the media only began to realize they had lost once the entire government had been dissolved. Nuclear annihilation will not come because of some desperate last ditch effort, but because of some politicians convincing themselves that they not only survive, but win, a nuclear conflict. And it's easier than ever to see that sort of mentality spreading in a world where narrative has become far more important than reality, at least to the idiots and octogenarians in charge.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia.

aguaviva 2y ago
[redacted]
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I also note that the discussion was about Russia vs. Poland (a NATO member), which is rather a different situation than Russia vs. Ukraine. Your reply is therefore a non sequitur as well as a rather shady rhetorical move. All that said, I do in fact support giving Ukraine what it needs in order to defend itself. I think that is in fact a worthy and noble goal.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I misread you (having been triggered by things other people have been saying about the topic). My mistake, but it was not intended rhetorically.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Yeah, I was just catching up on one of the branches of the conversation that have been triggering you. I, um, understand why you might be triggered... And, you know, I've never over-reacted or misinterpreted someone. Never. Um... at least not today... um, well, uh... I also was a bit hair-trigger in my reply to you. In particular, you gave pphysch more grace (the first time) than I gave you.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        No worries + thanks for clarifying. I do need to remind myself to slow down and check both GP and parent before responding (which is what I didn't do here), so it's all good, really.
golergka 2y ago
> In particular, destroy everything Russia puts over the border, and maybe even everything it's staging in an offensive posture near the border, but don't invade Russia. Oh, I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I think you could occupy as much as 80% of Russia. As long as you make sure that Putin and his friends were left alive and in charge of the remaining 20%, they wouldn't do a thing.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Current Russian nuclear doctrine says otherwise. I do not want to push on that to see if they're bluffing, thanks.

somenameforme 2y ago

You're failing to consider the fundamental point. The reason countries escalate is because they think it will bring victory. You can see the exact thing happening in Ukraine today. There have been a million 'game changers'. What happens when those game changers fail to change the game? Further escalation. And the losing side will often delude themselves to this reality til long after it's become an inescapable truth. For instance during WW2 Nazi propaganda continued running and claiming imminent victory all the way up until the Fall of Berlin, even after Hitler's death - who was praised as having died in a glorious battle against Bolshevism. People who listened to the media only began to realize they had lost once the entire government had been dissolved. Nuclear annihilation will not come because of some desperate last ditch effort, but because of some politicians convincing themselves that they not only survive, but win, a nuclear conflict. And it's easier than ever to see that sort of mentality spreading in a world where narrative has become far more important than reality, at least to the idiots and octogenarians in charge.