5 ms·

Just bend over for Putins liberators then. There’s nothing that can be done. Let them take what they want? No thanks.

andrepd 10mo ago
By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  I am glad you didn’t run the Cold War. Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.
- Sabinus 10mo ago
  Can I have your house if I threaten to nuke you? Assume I have a nuke. How about your wife? If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it. Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.
mmooss 10mo ago
If your plan is one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead, it's a bad plan. Attacking strawpersons doesn't make it better. You need a better plan.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    > The point is it doesn’t. That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.
    - Sabinus 10mo ago
      Imagine Trump threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, according to your logic they shouldn't run the risk of a nuclear exchange and Russia should retreat. Is this correct?
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        Spot on. Recognising Putin’s fake lines normalizes a nuclear response to conventional tactics. That path opens to a future where it would be irrational not to constantly threaten nuclear holocaust for minor military advantage. And in that world, someone will eventually miscalculate.
      - mmooss 10mo ago
        And Russia could threaten to nuke the US unless the US surrendered Poland. Obviously, the hypotheticals are absurd and flawed.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk Look up what they said would trigger a nuclear war at the start of the invasion. Many of those things have already happened.
      - mmooss 10mo ago
        They said it was a risk. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't disprove that. A 1/100 risk of nuclear war almost certainly wouldn't happen, and would be far too high of a risk. Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.
- flyinglizard 10mo ago
  It's not yet demonstrated Russia will make the jump from a limited conventional confrontation to an all out nuclear war, even as its territory is under daily attack from a non-nuclear country.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    It's not demonstrated, sure, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. This isn't rolling out an update to the text editor.
- cosmicgadget 10mo ago
  Sounds like your criticism is better leveled at the country threatening nuclear holocaust if someone sneezes at them.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    It's not an issue of fairness or blame, but of outcomes. I am not part of the Russian electorate talking to Russians. Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.
- sneak 10mo ago
  I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…

By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
actionfromafar 10mo ago
I am glad you didn’t run the Cold War. Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.
Sabinus 10mo ago
Can I have your house if I threaten to nuke you? Assume I have a nuke. How about your wife? If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it. Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.

mmooss 10mo ago

If your plan is one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead, it's a bad plan. Attacking strawpersons doesn't make it better. You need a better plan.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  > The point is it doesn’t. That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.
  - Sabinus 10mo ago
    Imagine Trump threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, according to your logic they shouldn't run the risk of a nuclear exchange and Russia should retreat. Is this correct?
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      Spot on. Recognising Putin’s fake lines normalizes a nuclear response to conventional tactics. That path opens to a future where it would be irrational not to constantly threaten nuclear holocaust for minor military advantage. And in that world, someone will eventually miscalculate.
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      And Russia could threaten to nuke the US unless the US surrendered Poland. Obviously, the hypotheticals are absurd and flawed.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk Look up what they said would trigger a nuclear war at the start of the invasion. Many of those things have already happened.
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      They said it was a risk. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't disprove that. A 1/100 risk of nuclear war almost certainly wouldn't happen, and would be far too high of a risk. Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.
flyinglizard 10mo ago
It's not yet demonstrated Russia will make the jump from a limited conventional confrontation to an all out nuclear war, even as its territory is under daily attack from a non-nuclear country.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  It's not demonstrated, sure, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. This isn't rolling out an update to the text editor.
cosmicgadget 10mo ago
Sounds like your criticism is better leveled at the country threatening nuclear holocaust if someone sneezes at them.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  It's not an issue of fairness or blame, but of outcomes. I am not part of the Russian electorate talking to Russians. Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.
sneak 10mo ago
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…