2 ms·

Deploying Western troops to Ukraine has a clear purpose and limit: evict Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Using nuclear weapons does not make much sense

Deploying Western troops to Ukraine has a clear purpose and limit: evict Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Using nuclear weapons does not make much sense in that scenario. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Yes, it puts soldiers directly in harms way of conventional weapons, which is why no one is doing it, but it restricts it to still being a regional conflict. The unrestricted warfare you're proposing escalates the situation dramatically and for Russia, nuclear warfare starts to look disturbingly approachable. The conversation wouldn't be about full exchange but a warning shot. A tit for tat escalation that makes Europe back off while the US is paralyzed with dysfunction. Any possible risk of a nuclear event is too much.

impossiblefork 1y ago
My comment doesn't propose use of nuclear weapons. I don't see how what I propose is unrestricted. It is simply how one conducts war. Entering Ukraine with troops puts those troops lives at risk for no reason. It is not legitimate to ask somebody to stand under artillery bombardment while the factories producing the shells are permitted to exist, or to attack well-defended positions when that is not the most efficient manner of attack. We have no right to conduct a war so badly. Our duty to our soldiers and to our population is to conduct the war in the free and appropriate way that is the normal conduct of war. We have a duty to undertake no operation of any kind that is not the most efficient and useful operation. This means not going against any prepared position, while betters targets exist, without considering any escalation concerns. This means focus on radical targets-- the roots of the enemy's fighting capability. This is our duty to our soldiers in planning and conducting a war and this not something we can deviate from.

impossiblefork 1y ago

My comment doesn't propose use of nuclear weapons. I don't see how what I propose is unrestricted. It is simply how one conducts war. Entering Ukraine with troops puts those troops lives at risk for no reason. It is not legitimate to ask somebody to stand under artillery bombardment while the factories producing the shells are permitted to exist, or to attack well-defended positions when that is not the most efficient manner of attack. We have no right to conduct a war so badly. Our duty to our soldiers and to our population is to conduct the war in the free and appropriate way that is the normal conduct of war. We have a duty to undertake no operation of any kind that is not the most efficient and useful operation. This means not going against any prepared position, while betters targets exist, without considering any escalation concerns. This means focus on radical targets-- the roots of the enemy's fighting capability. This is our duty to our soldiers in planning and conducting a war and this not something we can deviate from.