undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspywaregorilla3y ago0 comments

Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so.

If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.

> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

0 comments

mrjin3y ago

^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding?

There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.

spywaregorillaOP3y ago

I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.

frontman19883y ago

Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales. Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him. But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century. I hope they are in touch with Putin and his cronies(although it doesnt seem like it) and make sure they don't do anything crazy. Because if crazy shit happens, it's gonna be real bad and if civilization survives, will be a good lesson on how not to deal with nuclear dictators.

spywaregorillaOP3y ago

> Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales.

Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful.

> Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him.

Lunacy to bank on that

> But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century.

That's a nonsense sense of causality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsspywaregorilla3y ago0 comments

If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.

> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.

This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

0 comments

mrjin3y ago

^ If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond How would you respond though? Launch nukes on Russia and draw nukes on your own head? How is that better than not responding?

There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.

spywaregorillaOP3y ago

I can't tell what you're trying to say. The answer is clear. If russia uses nuclear weapons, hit them with a significant non nuclear response to punish them.

frontman19883y ago

spywaregorillaOP3y ago

> Geopolitics can be played at long enough time scales.

Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful.

> Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him.

Lunacy to bank on that

> But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century.

That's a nonsense sense of causality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse