6 ms·
> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine. As soon as you decide this, and let others know you have, you have lost
by dragonwriter 2y ago
> We cannot allow a nuclear war to happen, even if it means letting Putin have Ukraine.
As soon as you decide this, and let others know you have, you have lost everything. Because if that logic applies to Ukraine it applies equally to Poland, to Alaska, France, to Washington, D.C., to your hometown. You've committed to surrender everything to any power that has the potential to escalate to nuclear war.
(It's even worse if you don't believe this -- or if you think you do but would think differently if the thing to surrender was closer to home -- and let people think you do, because that makes it almost inevitable that things will escalate beyond your trigger point, resulting in nuclear war.)
- zdragnar 2y agoUkraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does, as do many others, which is largely why none of them have put boots on the ground beyond "training". If they did, they would actually be entering the war, and nuclear weapons are back on the table. That's also the reason why Alaska and France are safe, why Iran wants nukes, and is the best argument against disarmament you can find. The cat is out of the bag, and the attempts to put it back are starting to leave scars.
- arkx 2y agoUkraine did have Soviet-era nuclear weapons at the time of their independence, which they let go of in exchange of US, UK and Russia security guarantees in 1994. It is amazing to me how this fact is being memoryholed.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>It is amazing to me how this fact is being memory holed. Because every time it is brought up it is easily demonstrated that nobody actually agreed to defend Ukraine. They each agreed not to invade Ukraine.
- zdragnar 2y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The only assurance of assistance built into the agreement is that parties would complain to the UN security council. The Obama administration let Russia violate the agreement when they took Crimea. Putin's justification that Ukraine isn't a nation but a historically Russian territory only works if Russia pretends it was never a signatory, since recognition of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign nation was a part of it. In short, pieces of paper do not trump the fear of nuclear weapons.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons. America does So? If nuclear war is always an intolerable choice for America, then America's nuclear weapons will never be used in any case, and any aggressor who can plausibly threaten nuclear war is free to seize anything from America with that threat. If nuclear war isn't always intolerable, then, well, we've eliminated the premise off the upthread argument about Ukraine, and are in a different discussion.
- zdragnar 2y agoThe intolerability of nuclear weapon usage is not a simple binary. We didn't have the same kind of security agreements with Ukraine that we do with NATO countries, hence we are not at war with Russia. Had Russia invaded a NATO country, we still would not have launched first, but rather used conventional weapons, given the fallout (literal and metaphorical), but actually using them to prevent greater numbers of casualties from protracted war is not fully off the table, so to speak.
- t-3 2y agoIt's also the best argument for nuclear weapons you can find. If every country had nukes, invasions wouldn't be very likely for states with any semblance of rationality.
- danenania 2y agoHow does the logic “apply equally”? It’s only rational to start a nuclear war if a country faces a direct existential threat: i.e. a significant percentage of the population will be killed or conquered and enslaved. The perceived outcome of nuclear war (widespread devastation) has to be preferable to what would happen otherwise. Conflicts over territories at the far fringes of a great power’s sphere of influence (or desired sphere of influence) obviously don’t meet the bar. If it’s trivial to call your bluff, it’s probably better not to bluff.
- GMoromisato 2y agoAgreed! That's the key problem: we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Unfortunately, I think the rational thing to do is to apply increasing pressure to Putin until he either backs down or proves that he is willing to blow up the world over Ukraine. If the latter, then we back down. Of course, the risks of that strategy are all too obvious.
- roca 2y ago> But what if Putin thinks that unless he takes Ukraine, Russia will cease to exist (or Putin will cease to exist). In that scenario, taking Ukraine is an existential goal for Russa, and he will blow up the world unless he wins. Russia's nuclear arsenal is a perfectly adequate guarantee of Russia's security. Putin knows this, which is why he's happy to leave Russia's western border with NATO practically undefended while he pursues Ukraine. (This also disproves the "Putin invaded Ukraine because he's afraid of NATO" lie.) It's more plausible that Putin's survival depends on the outcome of the Ukraine war. But "mad Putin blows up the world" is as much a problem for the Russians as anyone else.
- DennisP 2y agoIndeed, when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia did nothing at all, despite Finland having a longer border with Russia than Ukraine has.