5 ms·

The hybrid war angle is wild conspiracy theorising. If the Russians wanted to blow up an English city they might as well drop bombs on it directly. I still wou

by roenxi 2y ago

The hybrid war angle is wild conspiracy theorising. If the Russians wanted to blow up an English city they might as well drop bombs on it directly. I still wouldn't want to be near a fertiliser ship though so it'd be reasonable to tell it to go somewhere else.

wslh 2y ago
The world is full of complexities and often misunderstood events. Applying higher-order thinking, such as realpolitik and game theory, can provide a more nuanced understanding of global dynamics. After centuries of dismissing concerns as mere "conspiracy theories" it's important to recognize that this may not be a theory, but rather a potential warning.
tgv 2y ago
How are they going to drop a bomb on it? Bomber? Rocket? If a ship explodes, Putin will deny everything, and grudgingly everyone will accept it, because you can't be certain, and we don't want war. But if a long-range bomber leaves Russia, flies to Liverpool and drops a bomb, it's an open declaration of war.
cromka 2y ago
Blowing up a ship offers way more plausibility. It’s not hard to imagine it would leave NATO without response. Not so much with the actual bombs.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Dropping normal bombs on it is highly identifiable and attributable, and not very damaging. Also, a normal bomber or cruise missile might actually get shot down. There would be no doubt about Article 5 and the need for a military response. Dropping a nuke on it is equally or more damaging, but likewise highly identifiable and attributable, and would force an even bigger reaction, likely even by China. Also, again, might be shot down. An explosion of a cargo ship is just as damaging as a small nuke, but cannot be immediately identified as an attack - even if people suspect it, it's hard to conclusively prove that it wasn't an accident. This makes it hard to muster a unified and strong response.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Dropping normal bombs on it is highly identifiable and attributable, and not very damaging. Also, a normal bomber or cruise missile might actually get shot down. Submariners would like a word.

by roenxi 2y ago

wslh 2y ago

The world is full of complexities and often misunderstood events. Applying higher-order thinking, such as realpolitik and game theory, can provide a more nuanced understanding of global dynamics. After centuries of dismissing concerns as mere "conspiracy theories" it's important to recognize that this may not be a theory, but rather a potential warning.

tgv 2y ago

How are they going to drop a bomb on it? Bomber? Rocket? If a ship explodes, Putin will deny everything, and grudgingly everyone will accept it, because you can't be certain, and we don't want war. But if a long-range bomber leaves Russia, flies to Liverpool and drops a bomb, it's an open declaration of war.

cromka 2y ago

Blowing up a ship offers way more plausibility. It’s not hard to imagine it would leave NATO without response. Not so much with the actual bombs.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

Dropping normal bombs on it is highly identifiable and attributable, and not very damaging. Also, a normal bomber or cruise missile might actually get shot down. There would be no doubt about Article 5 and the need for a military response. Dropping a nuke on it is equally or more damaging, but likewise highly identifiable and attributable, and would force an even bigger reaction, likely even by China. Also, again, might be shot down. An explosion of a cargo ship is just as damaging as a small nuke, but cannot be immediately identified as an attack - even if people suspect it, it's hard to conclusively prove that it wasn't an accident. This makes it hard to muster a unified and strong response.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Dropping normal bombs on it is highly identifiable and attributable, and not very damaging. Also, a normal bomber or cruise missile might actually get shot down. Submariners would like a word.