3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoImagine 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 agoSpot 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 agoAnd 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 agoThey 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.