4 ms·

What happened to the thesis of yesteryears of Nuclear Deterrence? At these point, I feel like countries actually want wars to continue.

XorNot 1y ago
It doesn't work if you don't have nuclear weapons.
- cantor_S_drug 1y ago
  Russia has nukes and it doesn't use them. Why is it behaving responsibly in this regard? Is Russia thoughtful that Ukraine doesn't have nukes so it shouldn't use them. It seems that both sides want the war to continue.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    As an armchair Internet commentator, my theory is that the deliberately provoked proxy war is designed to drain Russian resources, gauge their capabilities and potentially destabilize without direct engagement. I would agree that neither side is interested in stopping the war at this stage.
    - cantor_S_drug 1y ago
      There could be multiple reasons. You can't hurt russia too much because they have the nukes. Russia can't lose and Ukraine can't win. The deterrence if it existed should have worked for Russia because America showed to the world that wars can be stopped prematurely and on your terms. This is a moral way to test more weapons on both sides. This war will let all parties know who stands where. This is more like bickering between superpowers and to establish a new equilibrium.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      As an armchair internet commentator it's so weird how you managed to cook up verbatim wordage to Russian propaganda and chose to state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it.
      - palmfacehn 1y ago
        Please stop presuming malicious intent. If you want to have a discussion, try starting by assuming good faith. If you do not wish to have a discussion, well... >...state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it. I've done noting of the sort. The origins of the conflict are more complex than your framing allows. Furthermore, as we attempt to describe those origins, it would be helpful if you didn't confuse that description of events with a prescription or endorsement of specific actors. If we are unable to describe something coherently, we are unable to reason or have a reasonable discussion around it. Reasonable people should be able to hold distinct concepts in their mind simultaneously, even if they are seemingly contradictory from a surface level. As an example, we can and should be able to describe the events, speculate as to the underlying incentives of various parties and simultaneously hold moral principles which reject the use of violence. Propaganda can sometimes mislead by conflating these things. This prevents reasonable discussion.
        XorNot 1y ago
        Again, just super weird to say "the deliberately provoked proxy war" and not "the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Just weirdly weirdly exactly the same themes and even the same words as the actual declaration of war by the aggressor nation - Russia[1]. But you know. No agency whatsoever or something. Just straight up impossible for the 2nd largest nuclear power on the planet not to invade a neighboring sovereign state in a war of conquest. [1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declaration-of-war-on-ukraine/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declar...
        palmfacehn 1y ago
        If the extent of your reasoning ends with hasty generalizations (specifically, perceived parallels with Russian propaganda), many things will seem super weird. Simplistic categorization is a poor way to model the world. In a productive discussion, further inquiry allows us to narrow in on the dispute. Typically this process clarifies the details in question. Professor John Mearsheimer of the realist school has some hour long lectures on the topic of Ukraine. Some even precede the war itself. Obviously as a disclaimer, I do not agree with everything he has to say. You can pick and choose which sources or interviewers better appeal to your partisan biases. I won't choose for you, as you might dismiss it based on the source. That said, he's spoken with everyone from Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!" to the Hoover Institution. You might consider how your framing of super weird Russian propaganda applies to his lectures and interviews.
  - shawabawa3 1y ago
    If Russia nukes Ukraine (or anyone else) NATO would declare war on Russia, that's the only reason Russia is not using them
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      The longer this war goes on the more skeptical I am that NATO wouldn't just wag a finger angrily and then impose more sanctions.
  - short_sells_poo 1y ago
    I presume they evaluated the global response to dropping nukes and decided it's not worth it. A nuclear first strike is a red line for pretty much every major country. Russia would likely face extremely severe sanctions even from their remaining trading partners.

XorNot 1y ago

It doesn't work if you don't have nuclear weapons.

cantor_S_drug 1y ago
Russia has nukes and it doesn't use them. Why is it behaving responsibly in this regard? Is Russia thoughtful that Ukraine doesn't have nukes so it shouldn't use them. It seems that both sides want the war to continue.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  As an armchair Internet commentator, my theory is that the deliberately provoked proxy war is designed to drain Russian resources, gauge their capabilities and potentially destabilize without direct engagement. I would agree that neither side is interested in stopping the war at this stage.
  - cantor_S_drug 1y ago
    There could be multiple reasons. You can't hurt russia too much because they have the nukes. Russia can't lose and Ukraine can't win. The deterrence if it existed should have worked for Russia because America showed to the world that wars can be stopped prematurely and on your terms. This is a moral way to test more weapons on both sides. This war will let all parties know who stands where. This is more like bickering between superpowers and to establish a new equilibrium.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    As an armchair internet commentator it's so weird how you managed to cook up verbatim wordage to Russian propaganda and chose to state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it.
    - palmfacehn 1y ago
      Please stop presuming malicious intent. If you want to have a discussion, try starting by assuming good faith. If you do not wish to have a discussion, well... >...state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it. I've done noting of the sort. The origins of the conflict are more complex than your framing allows. Furthermore, as we attempt to describe those origins, it would be helpful if you didn't confuse that description of events with a prescription or endorsement of specific actors. If we are unable to describe something coherently, we are unable to reason or have a reasonable discussion around it. Reasonable people should be able to hold distinct concepts in their mind simultaneously, even if they are seemingly contradictory from a surface level. As an example, we can and should be able to describe the events, speculate as to the underlying incentives of various parties and simultaneously hold moral principles which reject the use of violence. Propaganda can sometimes mislead by conflating these things. This prevents reasonable discussion.
      - XorNot 1y ago
        Again, just super weird to say "the deliberately provoked proxy war" and not "the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Just weirdly weirdly exactly the same themes and even the same words as the actual declaration of war by the aggressor nation - Russia[1]. But you know. No agency whatsoever or something. Just straight up impossible for the 2nd largest nuclear power on the planet not to invade a neighboring sovereign state in a war of conquest. [1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declaration-of-war-on-ukraine/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declar...
        palmfacehn 1y ago
        If the extent of your reasoning ends with hasty generalizations (specifically, perceived parallels with Russian propaganda), many things will seem super weird. Simplistic categorization is a poor way to model the world. In a productive discussion, further inquiry allows us to narrow in on the dispute. Typically this process clarifies the details in question. Professor John Mearsheimer of the realist school has some hour long lectures on the topic of Ukraine. Some even precede the war itself. Obviously as a disclaimer, I do not agree with everything he has to say. You can pick and choose which sources or interviewers better appeal to your partisan biases. I won't choose for you, as you might dismiss it based on the source. That said, he's spoken with everyone from Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!" to the Hoover Institution. You might consider how your framing of super weird Russian propaganda applies to his lectures and interviews.
- shawabawa3 1y ago
  If Russia nukes Ukraine (or anyone else) NATO would declare war on Russia, that's the only reason Russia is not using them
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    The longer this war goes on the more skeptical I am that NATO wouldn't just wag a finger angrily and then impose more sanctions.
- short_sells_poo 1y ago
  I presume they evaluated the global response to dropping nukes and decided it's not worth it. A nuclear first strike is a red line for pretty much every major country. Russia would likely face extremely severe sanctions even from their remaining trading partners.