4 ms·

Well, we're going to find out, soon, what it's like to have Germany with nukes, with Sweden with nukes, with Finalnd with nukes, with Poland with nukes. If you

by cduzz 2y ago

Well, we're going to find out, soon, what it's like to have Germany with nukes, with Sweden with nukes, with Finalnd with nukes, with Poland with nukes. If you're the PM of Estonia, the only thing keeping you safe is either an "agreement" that you'll be protected or nukes. [edit] And agreements, at least signed by the U.S.A. appear to be bankrupt. So, on what earth do you live on that we're safer now?

lazyeye 2y ago
We are not safe. But successfully protecting Ukraine will bring us closer to nuclear war than we've ever been and we need to acknowledge that.
- cduzz 2y ago
  Horseshit. Making sure every country on earth has nukes is way more likely to cause nukes to be used than beating the russian army out of Ukraine. First -- Do his nukes even work? Or have they been replaced with cardboard "Nuke Go Here" boxes? Also -- What's Putin going to nuke? He can try some battlefield nuke, and then have his army march through it? That's assuming that his troops have more than a week of training for "marching through a place we just nuked" Or maybe he'll nuke Kiev? I don't think that'd make much difference in letting russia gain ground. Or maybe Putin is planning on nuking Rotterdam because of the F-16s? Nukes may make china and india stop supporting him, they may provoke more retaliation from the west. But nukes certainly won't change much unless the plan is to just glass the whole of Ukraine, in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't.
  - moogly 2y ago
    > in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't. Currently, it seems the US would rather glass London and Paris if that happened.
    - cduzz 2y ago
      My point is that Putin wants to live; he's unlikely to survive Moscow getting glassed, regardless of who does the glassing. So he's unlikely to convert all of Ukraine to a moonscape. And anything _less_ than glassing Ukraine is unlikely to change Ukraine's behavior or materially affect the special military operation's progress. Hypothetically, if Ukraine has a breakthrough after a massive collapse of the russian army, nukes will prevent Ukraine from going all the way to Lubyanka Square. But there's no way to use nukes to help the russian invasion any more than a shotgun will help with colon cancer.
- room271 2y ago
  The problem is, Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he is allowed to take it. His worldview is that the fall of the USSR is the greatest wrong of the last century, and he is determined to recreate it. And Europe will suffer greatly if a resurgent USSR is allowed to grow unchecked next to it. (Not even speaking of the millions of people who will suffer under its authoritarian rule.)
- sleepyguy 2y ago
  So, would protecting Estonia bring us closure to Nuclear war? What would stop Russia from taking Estonia, Latvia, or even Lithuania, or is the West ready to use a Nuclear weapon in that situation? The Lithuanian capital city, Vilnius, is 20 km from the Russian border; they wouldn't even have to cross it to level the entire city. Would NATO attack Russia proper, would the West Nuke Russia to stop the destruction of Vilnius? I'm sure Lithuania would use a Nuclear weapon to protect itself. If there is one thing that this war has shown us, it is that a country's security is in its own hands and a Nuclear Weapon is the difference between being invaded and conquered (ex: North Korea and soon to be Iran).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  One could similarly point to Putin’s actions as bringing us closer to nuclear war. Acknowledge how close the world is to nuclear war, sure, but it’s hardly an argument against stabilizing Ukraine against Russia.
- jaredklewis 2y ago
  Well sure, if only everyone would just lie down and let Putin walk over them, once he was world dictator he would be appeased and the risk of nuclear war would finally go away.
- ygjb 2y ago
  No one is going to launch a nuke in defense of Ukraine. Russia might launch a nuke as an offensive tactic. If they did that, it's the end of Russia, and depending on the escalation, the end of the world as we know it. No one can control what will happen, but the simple reality is that allowing Russia to push a war of aggression out of fear of a nuclear attack endorses the idea that anyone with Nuclear capability can do what they want. China, India, etc can annex or invade and no one will stop them because it might trigger escalation. That reinforces the need for less powerful nations to pursue nuclear capability. Those smaller, less stable nations will be more likely to lose control of a nuclear weapon. It's a catch 22 so we might as well try to err on the side of stopping wars of aggression. The other path is open for the cowards who would rather bend the knee or look the other way until aggression knocks on their front door.

by cduzz 2y ago

lazyeye 2y ago

We are not safe. But successfully protecting Ukraine will bring us closer to nuclear war than we've ever been and we need to acknowledge that.

cduzz 2y ago
Horseshit. Making sure every country on earth has nukes is way more likely to cause nukes to be used than beating the russian army out of Ukraine. First -- Do his nukes even work? Or have they been replaced with cardboard "Nuke Go Here" boxes? Also -- What's Putin going to nuke? He can try some battlefield nuke, and then have his army march through it? That's assuming that his troops have more than a week of training for "marching through a place we just nuked" Or maybe he'll nuke Kiev? I don't think that'd make much difference in letting russia gain ground. Or maybe Putin is planning on nuking Rotterdam because of the F-16s? Nukes may make china and india stop supporting him, they may provoke more retaliation from the west. But nukes certainly won't change much unless the plan is to just glass the whole of Ukraine, in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't.
- moogly 2y ago
  > in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't. Currently, it seems the US would rather glass London and Paris if that happened.
  - cduzz 2y ago
    My point is that Putin wants to live; he's unlikely to survive Moscow getting glassed, regardless of who does the glassing. So he's unlikely to convert all of Ukraine to a moonscape. And anything _less_ than glassing Ukraine is unlikely to change Ukraine's behavior or materially affect the special military operation's progress. Hypothetically, if Ukraine has a breakthrough after a massive collapse of the russian army, nukes will prevent Ukraine from going all the way to Lubyanka Square. But there's no way to use nukes to help the russian invasion any more than a shotgun will help with colon cancer.
room271 2y ago
The problem is, Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he is allowed to take it. His worldview is that the fall of the USSR is the greatest wrong of the last century, and he is determined to recreate it. And Europe will suffer greatly if a resurgent USSR is allowed to grow unchecked next to it. (Not even speaking of the millions of people who will suffer under its authoritarian rule.)
sleepyguy 2y ago
So, would protecting Estonia bring us closure to Nuclear war? What would stop Russia from taking Estonia, Latvia, or even Lithuania, or is the West ready to use a Nuclear weapon in that situation? The Lithuanian capital city, Vilnius, is 20 km from the Russian border; they wouldn't even have to cross it to level the entire city. Would NATO attack Russia proper, would the West Nuke Russia to stop the destruction of Vilnius? I'm sure Lithuania would use a Nuclear weapon to protect itself. If there is one thing that this war has shown us, it is that a country's security is in its own hands and a Nuclear Weapon is the difference between being invaded and conquered (ex: North Korea and soon to be Iran).
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
One could similarly point to Putin’s actions as bringing us closer to nuclear war. Acknowledge how close the world is to nuclear war, sure, but it’s hardly an argument against stabilizing Ukraine against Russia.
jaredklewis 2y ago
Well sure, if only everyone would just lie down and let Putin walk over them, once he was world dictator he would be appeased and the risk of nuclear war would finally go away.
ygjb 2y ago
No one is going to launch a nuke in defense of Ukraine. Russia might launch a nuke as an offensive tactic. If they did that, it's the end of Russia, and depending on the escalation, the end of the world as we know it. No one can control what will happen, but the simple reality is that allowing Russia to push a war of aggression out of fear of a nuclear attack endorses the idea that anyone with Nuclear capability can do what they want. China, India, etc can annex or invade and no one will stop them because it might trigger escalation. That reinforces the need for less powerful nations to pursue nuclear capability. Those smaller, less stable nations will be more likely to lose control of a nuclear weapon. It's a catch 22 so we might as well try to err on the side of stopping wars of aggression. The other path is open for the cowards who would rather bend the knee or look the other way until aggression knocks on their front door.