I think I'm beginning to understand your viewpoint a bit better now (full-scale nuclear war should be avoided at all costs), although I still think you aren't critical enough of Russia. Surely you can see that Russia is the aggressor here? The war in Ukraine simply didn't need to happen and is entirely 100% caused by Russia.erowind wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:55 amFor as much as I haven't replied to everything, trust me I tried but once I spent an hour writing I realized I spent too much time on the forum for the day. It's not like when I was a teenager anymore for better and worse. But for everything I haven't responded to; I mostly mirror your sentiment here. I really don't want to see nuclear war either and that's a big part of why I became more active in this thread lately.caltrek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:43 pm ^^^ Oh S__t.
That is much higher than the 1 to 2% chance a lot of "forecasters" have been offering. Although 1 to 2% may be overly optimistic, I do think that there is a lot of poker-faced bluffing going on. Neither side really wants an escalated nuclear war. Yet, neither side really wants to back down. It will be like OMG they are really getting serious, to OMG it is really going to happen, to the announcement of a sudden diplomatic breakthrough with face saving conditions for both sides.
Of course, part of the bluffing is the whole "Putin is a mad man" routine. The whole point of the bluff being to frighten and intimidate.
That is why those that oppose capitulation are right. Once you give in to nuclear blackmail, it is never going to end. On the other hand, wise men like Chomksy also have a point, negotiations are much to be desired. As I have earlier expressed, I really don't want to see civilization as we know it end because a "real estate deal" goes bad.
More war doesn't solve this. The time to deescalate is now.
The only thing I disagree on is the giving into nuclear blackmail thing if it implies nuclear retaliation is justified. It's not and never will be. I'd rather Russia, The US, or China let loose their entire arsenals and no one else fires a single shot than retaliate. (This is still awful and must be prevented of course!!!) An exchange of fire will always be worse than just taking the hit for the species, future generations, and ourselves. I don't believe in pacifism broadly but with nuclear weapons it is the only ethical and self-preserving course of action. I would rather live under tyranny to fight another day than destroy the planet for 10s of thousands of years. That said. Our country should be investing however many billions are necessary to build nuclear missile defense capabilities and distributing that equipment to every country that asks for it handedly NATO or not. Nullification and eventual disarmament of nuclear weapons is possible our cultures have simply chosen MAD because they are mad.
Defensive offensive capabilities that are controlled by an international nuclear and weapons of mass destruction enforcement agency would be nice too. Maybe those hypothetical orbital tungsten kinetic bombardment platforms could be put to use. At least until we get our senses together it would be nice if very small yield highly accurate non-radioactive deterrence existed that was capable of precisely knocking out nuclear military installations globally. (This is a complete pipe dream, no international body in this climate will organize this, but maybe one day it could be used on some lagging rouge state. It would have to be headed by a genuinely democratic body like the UN but without the security council.)
There is really no excuse that we're spending over half a trillion dollars on updating nuclear offensive capabilities yet are incapable of intercepting 99% of incoming strikes.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240
And why should Russia feel so threatened by the West? We have never, and would never try to invade or annex their lands. Russia was doing relatively okay until it decided to destroy its economy and reputation.
Did you see Putin's recent speech? It was the rantings of a madman. One guest on BBC News suggested that he needs a psychiatrist!
So I don't quite understand why (elsewhere in this thread) you heap the lion's share of blame on NATO. It has sometimes appeared like you tacitly support Putin, when he's clearly a hostile, evil, megalomaniac and dictator who is ruining countless lives. And it now seems clear that he isn't going to back down – the only way this ends is to defeat him militarily, drive Russia out of Ukraine, and hope the Russians are sane enough to attempt some sort of regime change.
FYI, I agree with 99% of your posts on other threads.