|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2022 14:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Seen a lot of reports that Russia is preparing to escalate this war with much heavier use of artillery, thermobaric weapons, etc. Kyiv might be about to get far more destroyed.
I'm also worried from reports that Russian leadership is demanding that Kyiv be taken by Monday. I fear the Russian military will resort to levelling the city or being far less restrained. There must be some desperation from Putin and his circle to end this quick and start scoring propaganda victories like "Kyiv was liberated". Plus, Monday is when the market opens for Russia, and the ruble is sure to become toilet paper. They don't want that to be the headline. There's already runs on ATMs at 5 a.m. in Russia.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: Show nested quote +by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before!
Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia.
I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”.
You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 15:39 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:08 Starlightsun wrote:
It's quite possible that Putin does see losing this war as an existential threat to himself at least. All the people he has killed, imprisoned or intimidated to stay in power... He is probably a dead man if he doesn't keep his grip on power. Yup. I think that this is a strong possibility. And I also think it's something of a possibility Putin is enough of a selfish monster that if he saw certain failure here and had a strong enough provocation (like NATO shooting russian down russian vehicles) he'd be willing to go nuclear. Can't be certain of any of this, but Kwark's idea of risking fucking nuclear war on the certainty of his assumptions about Putin's willingness to take that sort of thing and de-escalate when the man is (1) very old and paranoid and (2) trying to go full hitler - is madness. Given how much of the decision making about this is coming from Putin as an individual rather than Russia as a state, it's especially scary. The preference for survival and de-escalation is a much more stable and consistent feature of large groups than it is of single individuals.
They’re already risking nuclear war as has been pointed out. Putin says that Finland joining NATO risks nuclear war, sanctions risks nuclear war, banking restrictions risks nuclear war, military aid risks nuclear war. It is correct for western nations to recognize that
1) While nobody wins nuclear war Russia would most certainly lose
2) Russia isn’t going to voluntarily destroy itself over these things, it knows it would lose
3) Putin is lying about where his red lines are
I am advocating for more of the same. For recognizing that just as he was full of shit when he said that banking restrictions are a red line so he is full of shit if he claims that airspace over Ukraine is a red line. Presumably you also oppose banning Russia from SWIFT due to the risk of Russia treating it as an act of war (as they said they would).
|
On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said.
No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us?
A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia?
NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat?
What planet are you living on?
|
On February 27 2022 15:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:kwark your idea that because weve never experienced nuclear war before we should assume we can trust everyone to not start a nuclear war in future is beyond stupid. by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. you dont even realise that the argument youre actually making is that because you threw 20 coins in the air and they all landed on tails, the next coin you throw cannot be heads. You misunderstand. There are multiple people involved in a decision to cause a nuclear war. I used 20 as an example. The assumption that at least 1 of 20 of them will be sane is more valid than the assumption that exactly 0 of 20 will be. I am not saying that 20 coins landing on tails makes the 21st more likely. I am saying that it is more likely that there is at least one sane person in a room of 20 people than exactly 0 sane people.
im not misunderstanding at all.
i agree with you that the likelihood of a nuclear war actually starting is incredibly small, no matter how severe the situation gets. im not a military person but i think its safe to assume now that chain of command doesnt have the same strength as it probably did 70 years ago. there are more failsafes in place even if its just via select individuals likely to oppose direction to commence a nuclear strike.
however, just like with the cuban missile crisis, youre hoping for a select number of people to be in the right positions, at the right place and at the right time to engage in a heroic act of blocking a nuclear war. do you really think the correct decision is to risk billions of lives and world stability by placing the burden of having to stop a nuclear war on the shoulders of these individuals?
the much better choice is to not create a situation that forces such people to become heroes in the first place. this isnt a game, you dont gamble on the opponent bluffing when you make you decide to push your opponent to his limit. heck, ive been to court where we either bluffed or called the opposing side's bluff, but with nuclear war clearly the stakes are much higher.
|
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on?
Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.
This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that.
So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion.
|
On February 27 2022 16:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 15:39 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On February 27 2022 15:08 Starlightsun wrote:
It's quite possible that Putin does see losing this war as an existential threat to himself at least. All the people he has killed, imprisoned or intimidated to stay in power... He is probably a dead man if he doesn't keep his grip on power. Yup. I think that this is a strong possibility. And I also think it's something of a possibility Putin is enough of a selfish monster that if he saw certain failure here and had a strong enough provocation (like NATO shooting russian down russian vehicles) he'd be willing to go nuclear. Can't be certain of any of this, but Kwark's idea of risking fucking nuclear war on the certainty of his assumptions about Putin's willingness to take that sort of thing and de-escalate when the man is (1) very old and paranoid and (2) trying to go full hitler - is madness. Given how much of the decision making about this is coming from Putin as an individual rather than Russia as a state, it's especially scary. The preference for survival and de-escalation is a much more stable and consistent feature of large groups than it is of single individuals. They’re already risking nuclear war as has been pointed out. Putin says that Finland joining NATO risks nuclear war, sanctions risks nuclear war, banking restrictions risks nuclear war, military aid risks nuclear war. It is correct for western nations to recognize that 1) While nobody wins nuclear war Russia would most certainly lose 2) Russia isn’t going to voluntarily destroy itself over these things, it knows it would lose 3) Putin is lying about where his red lines are I am advocating for more of the same. For recognizing that just as he was full of shit when he said that banking restrictions are a red line so he is full of shit if he claims that airspace over Ukraine is a red line. Presumably you also oppose banning Russia from SWIFT due to the risk of Russia treating it as an act of war (as they said they would).
(1) I don't think Putin on a personal level cares about Russia, only about Putin.
(2) debatable right now as win or lose Russia may very well have just done that by starting this war at all.
Putin's track record with these decisions recently does not inspire confidence.
(3) Joining alliances and enacting sanctions is a very different beast to effectively guaranteeing a lot of shooting between NATO and Russia. Putin's obviously lying about his red lines, but that doesn't mean he has none.
I'm not sure what inspires your confidence here - we're watching and increasingly cornered Putin destroy his own country to commit an unprovoked all-out war on a sovereign nation. Maybe you are right and he would de-escalate, but unless you've bugged Putin's bunker and have some information us mortals don't, you can't be even close to certain of something like that.
|
On February 27 2022 16:18 Silvanel wrote:
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war.
Kwark understands this (I think) and he wants a war between NATO and Russia. He's certain that such a war cannot ever go nuclear because global thermonuclear war has never happened before, so nukes might as well not exist. It's like he lacks object permanence when it comes to nuclear weapons.
|
On February 27 2022 16:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on? Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that. So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion.
wait...are you actually of the opinion that this isnt some bullshit line putin is just throwing out there and that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation?
russia has declared war on ukraine, period. its "peacekeeping" from russia's perspective only. for everyone else its russia trying to take over ukraine ww2 style. the only difference is with advancements in military technology and combat, you dont have thousands of soldiers digging trenches and charging into machine gun fire
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:18 Silvanel wrote:
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war.
You’d be surprised how much nations can shoot at each other without it being war. You’re also looking at this from only the perspective of NATO having to shoot at them and how much you’d like to avoid that. The inverse is equally true, they’re not eager to shoot at NATO for the exact same reason.
Imagine if on the same day Russia declared it would be doing peacekeeping in Ukraine Poland did the same. Russian forces move into Ukraine from the east and Polish from the west. What you end up with is not a war between Poland and Russia but instead an awkward discussion of how best to avoid treading on each other’s toes. “Oh, you already occupied that city, we wanted to occupy that city”. Some soldiers probably get shot during the embarrassing misunderstandings but that’s basically what soldiers are for. They stand around catching bullets while the politicians decide if they want to talk to each other. At no point does anyone go “let’s just all kill everyone for no reason”.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:23 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:19 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on? Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that. So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion. wait...are you actually of the opinion that this isnt some bullshit line putin is just throwing out there and that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation? russia has declared war on ukraine, period. its "peacekeeping" from russia's perspective only. for everyone else its russia trying to take over ukraine ww2 style. the only difference is with advancements in military technology and combat, you dont have thousands of soldiers digging trenches and charging into machine gun fire
I’m trying to explain the difference between what nations do these days and the classic ideal of a war as LoA is using it. LoA is being incredibly black and white, shooting = war = thunderdome. That’s not how the world works at all.
|
On February 27 2022 16:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:23 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 27 2022 16:19 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on? Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that. So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion. wait...are you actually of the opinion that this isnt some bullshit line putin is just throwing out there and that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation? russia has declared war on ukraine, period. its "peacekeeping" from russia's perspective only. for everyone else its russia trying to take over ukraine ww2 style. the only difference is with advancements in military technology and combat, you dont have thousands of soldiers digging trenches and charging into machine gun fire I’m trying to explain the difference between what nations do these days and the classic ideal of a war as LoA is using it. LoA is being incredibly black and white, shooting = war = thunderdome. That’s not how the world works at all.
And yet, Putin has declined to invade any NATO countries, despite his willingness to invade everywhere else. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the massive US nuclear arsenal.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:20 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:18 Silvanel wrote:
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war. Kwark understands this (I think) and he wants a war between NATO and Russia. He's certain that such a war cannot ever go nuclear because global thermonuclear war has never happened before, so nukes might as well not exist. It's like he lacks object permanence when it comes to nuclear weapons.
I don’t want a war, I’m saying that an awkward shared theatre of operations over Ukraine is a very different thing to a war. You’re not getting that it isn’t 1914 anymore. There’s a difference between an exchange of munitions and a declaration of war. Russian special forces have been hanging out in Ukraine shooting Ukrainian soldiers for a decade without Russia nuking anyone. It’s just not how it works anymore.
|
On February 27 2022 16:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:23 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 27 2022 16:19 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on? Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that. So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion. wait...are you actually of the opinion that this isnt some bullshit line putin is just throwing out there and that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation? russia has declared war on ukraine, period. its "peacekeeping" from russia's perspective only. for everyone else its russia trying to take over ukraine ww2 style. the only difference is with advancements in military technology and combat, you dont have thousands of soldiers digging trenches and charging into machine gun fire I’m trying to explain the difference between what nations do these days and the classic ideal of a war as LoA is using it. LoA is being incredibly black and white, shooting = war = thunderdome. That’s not how the world works at all.
i think the point youre not understanding is that if nato were to enforce a no fly zone and russia just accepted that, russia completely fails to accomplish its objective. theres just no way russia successfully takes over ukraine without air support.
now in the face of such failure, do you expect putin to just back off with his tail between his legs and go back to his government and say "yo nato intervened. lets pretend like this never happened", or do you think he'll double down?
the latter scenario is perfectly plausible and if the battle doesnt go russias way the bigger weapons get brought out. eventually the weapons become nuclear size. thats the problem
|
On February 27 2022 16:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:20 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 16:18 Silvanel wrote:
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war. Kwark understands this (I think) and he wants a war between NATO and Russia. He's certain that such a war cannot ever go nuclear because global thermonuclear war has never happened before, so nukes might as well not exist. It's like he lacks object permanence when it comes to nuclear weapons. I don’t want a war, I’m saying that an awkward shared theatre of operations over Ukraine is a very different thing to a war. You’re not getting that it isn’t 1914 anymore.
It's not a "shared theater of operations" whatever the hell that means. It's US and Russian pilots killing each other, Russian SAMs killing US pilots, which means airstrikes on Russian SAMs are necessary (or else you lose the entire no fly zone, you can't just dodge SAMs endlessly), which means attacking the Russian army on the ground as well. This is full blown war between NATO and Russia. That war is what the world spent 50 years avoiding during the Cold War, solely because of nuclear weapons. How is this difficult to understand??
|
Rubio is Vice Chair of the Senate Intel Committee and he's just tweeting out tons of info on the war. A lot of stuff there that you can't find anywhere else. The US has shown it has really high quality intel on the Russians.
https://twitter.com/marcorubio
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:36 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:30 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:23 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 27 2022 16:19 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:08 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:55 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 15:24 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 15:13 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark:
..."that we can trust nations" - in your argument, means that in every would-be-nuclear-war, there will be that one sane guy which will prevent it.
at best, that's a flimsy argument but overall here, you seem child-like, believing and putting all your money on that silver lining. I fail to see how the belief in at least one sane guy is more far fetched than the belief in exactly zero sane guys. If I told you that I threw 20 coins in the air and at least one landed on heads that’d be a safe bet. If I told you that exactly 0 landed on heads you’d doubt me. I find the opposing argument “give them what they want and they’ll go away” to be far more naive. Both sides have the ability to say “give me what I want or we all die” and neither side wants to die. The only path forwards is firmness and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Rolling over and hoping that they don’t ask for more isn’t going to achieve positive results. The most obvious takeaway from this current crisis is that too little was done after Crimea. Arms lift to Ukraine is the correct thing to do and all of NATO is currently, publicly engaged in it. A world of difference between that and starting a shooting war between Russia and NATO, which is, once again, what you are advocating. You might say, "the Russians started the war first." I guarantee you the Russians won't see it that way. And given the fact that they are hopelessly screwed in a conventional war with NATO, and they know it, nukes are the only way out of the strategic box. EDIT: by your logic all world leaders may as well engage in international politics under the premise that nuclear weapons dont exist at all, because no one would be irrational enough to actually use them anyway. Exactly, and due to this view you are advocating taking steps which brings us closer to global thermonuclear war than anyone has ever risked before! Who is talking war? Nobody goes to war anymore, they haven’t in decades, and I’m certainly not describing a conventional war with Russia. I’m describing peacekeeping operations in the sovereign nation of Ukraine. You keep treating this as if I’m advocating for tanks rolling into Moscow, a conventional war against Russia. I am not. Russia could avoid any conventional exchange by not being in Ukraine at all. A country that is not under attack, will not be under attack, and can end all hostilities at a whim with no loss of territory or resources is not “hopelessly screwed”. You inventing straw men that obviously would cross a red line (fully declared war with a conventional military defeat of Russia leading to occupation) has absolutely no bearing on anything I’ve said. No war in decades? We're not watching a war unfold in Ukraine in front of us? A no fly zone in Ukraine, meaning an air war between Russia and NATO, is not a conventional war with Russia? NATO and Russian jets shooting each other out of the sky isn't war between Russia and NATO, it's "peacekeeping" and that changes whether or not Putin resorts to nukes to stave off military defeat? What planet are you living on? Formal declarations of war that require the declarer to attack the other party until a formal surrender is given are a thing of the past. Russia made it clear they were peacekeeping in Ukraine.This is relevant because two nations peacekeeping in the same region don’t pose an existential threat to each other. They can make informal agreements to peacekeep on different days, to avoid each other, or shoot at each other without anyone presuming it is a prelude to anything greater than that. So yes, it wouldn’t be a war. Nobody goes to war anymore. I’m honestly a little surprised you didn’t notice. The US hasn’t declared war properly since Romania in 1942. Overlapping peacekeeping operations aren’t a war, they’re a potentially difficult diplomatic situation that should really be discussed to avoid unpleasantness. Perhaps China could host such a discussion. wait...are you actually of the opinion that this isnt some bullshit line putin is just throwing out there and that this is a genuine peacekeeping operation? russia has declared war on ukraine, period. its "peacekeeping" from russia's perspective only. for everyone else its russia trying to take over ukraine ww2 style. the only difference is with advancements in military technology and combat, you dont have thousands of soldiers digging trenches and charging into machine gun fire I’m trying to explain the difference between what nations do these days and the classic ideal of a war as LoA is using it. LoA is being incredibly black and white, shooting = war = thunderdome. That’s not how the world works at all. i think the point youre not understanding is that if nato were to enforce a no fly zone and russia just accepted that, russia completely fails to accomplish its objective. theres just no way russia successfully takes over ukraine without air support. now in the face of such failure, do you expect putin to just back off with his tail between his legs and go back to his government and say "yo nato intervened. lets pretend like this never happened", or do you think he'll double down? the latter scenario is perfectly plausible and if the battle doesnt go russias way the bigger weapons get brought out. eventually the weapons become nuclear size. thats the problem
They’d probably end up getting to keep eastern Ukraine after the talks because, as you say, a full tail between their legs retreat wouldn’t be acceptable. But it would force negotiations. Announce the intent to enforce a no-fly zone in 24 hours or whatever. Ideally you get the ceasefire scheduled before you actually have to enforce it. Failing that they kill your pilots and you kill theirs but you both have the common sense to keep the violence happening over Ukraine because that’s the scope of the mission and nobody likes mission creep. After a bunch of pilots have died you end up in the same place, ceasefire, have a discussion in China, Putin gets to keep Eastern Ukraine, Western Ukraine joins EU/NATO.
|
United States43472 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 16:31 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 16:20 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 16:18 Silvanel wrote:
Enforcing a "no fly zone" over Ukraine would mean NATO fighters and air defense firing on their planes and helicopters. We would probably also need to destroy their ships and air defense systems, so they cannot fire at our planes. That's basically war. Kwark understands this (I think) and he wants a war between NATO and Russia. He's certain that such a war cannot ever go nuclear because global thermonuclear war has never happened before, so nukes might as well not exist. It's like he lacks object permanence when it comes to nuclear weapons. I don’t want a war, I’m saying that an awkward shared theatre of operations over Ukraine is a very different thing to a war. You’re not getting that it isn’t 1914 anymore. It's not a "shared theater of operations" whatever the hell that means. It's US and Russian pilots killing each other, Russian SAMs killing US pilots, which means airstrikes on Russian SAMs are necessary (or else you lose the entire no fly zone, you can't just dodge SAMs endlessly), which means attacking the Russian army on the ground as well. This is full blown war between NATO and Russia. That war is what the world spent 50 years avoiding during the Cold War, solely because of nuclear weapons. How is this difficult to understand??
It really doesn’t mean any of what you’re saying. War isn’t the same thing as militaries shooting each other and it hasn’t been for a long time. There are loads of fancy new euphemisms to explain why we’re shooting people and getting shot while at peace. War is an existential threat that compels one nation to surrender to another. I’m talking “hostilities” and “exchanges” during “peacekeeping operations”. You can do that for ages without anyone getting carried away. Right now we’re manufacturing weapons, giving them to the Ukrainian army, and telling them where to aim them. But that is “lethal aid” and “intelligence sharing”, certainly nothing warlike. If Russia were more powerful and the West weaker they’d call that a declaration of war but they’re not so it is “aggression” and “interference”.
You’re about 60 years out of date on your geopolitics. It’s a game and all the great powers understand the rules.
|
I’m not sure i trust russian failsafe nor Putin to do the rational thing if Russia and Nato start shooting at each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
