What Pharmacist said. It was just reported that 500+ civilian bodies have so far been discovered in Kharkiv city, and almost two dozen torture rooms in the recently liberated areas.
Kind of hard to just look the other way when your people are being raped, robbed, tortured and killed.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
If these are the stakes, then it's an insane thing to risk. You want to be sure the Ukrainians are okay with it. How about the other 8 billion people on the planet whose lives would be dramatically changed by a local war suddenly turning into a global catastrophe?
Either Biden is being dishonest, or he believes it's a situation where failure to de-escalate risks immense, life-altering consequences for everyone. The moral imperative in a situation like that should be obvious.
As pointed out, appeasing Putin in this situation open the door for future nuclear engagements in other regions if they know the US/NATO is simply going to ##### out if you toss out a nuke threat. Can't have that.
If that's your train of thought, what are you thoughts if Russia attacks a NATO member like say, Latvia? A country with not even 2 million people that has a significantly smaller area than Ukraine, way less people have heard about, let alone could point it out on a map. If Russia were to attack them and then throw out nuclear threats if NATO arrives, should Latvia be handed over to Russia because we're afraid of a nuclear war?
In fact, might as well get rid of NATO all together. Because apparently the second NATO engages directly with Russia, according to some we are all instantly in a nuclear conflict. So then why the F do we need NATO if it apparently leads to nuclear holocaust? If we are to think about the remaining 8 billion people, then why have an organization such as NATO that could lead us all to dying?
Nobody likes this situation, but it's ridiculous to put this on Biden. That plays right into Russian talking points.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
Unfortunate this is when we (NATO) can't put our head in the sand. Appeasement is not going to work, becuase the minute we give Putin an inch, he'll be taking a mile.
His back is against the corner, and the same situation would likely occur if the West appeased him on Ukraine but let him walk all over a place like the Baltics. The minute NATO or the West pushes back - directly or indirectly - and Putin is on his toes, his decision-making is going to have nuclear amibitions.
So the West is going to unfortunately have to address this. I think a solid play is to try and have the Putin administration collapse from within. The best thing that can happen is his generals turn on him, and Ukraine recovers their pre-February borders (and Crimea would be a plus).
There are non-nuclear options here outside of mutiny but I don't think Putin's pride and ego will let him entertain those options.
If Putin is serious about nuclear warfare, the only way out resides within the Kremlin.
Putin may have only a few cards left. The West have fewer options if he is as good as his word.
Appeasement is not an option. It will only lead to further suffering in Ukraine and the nuclear can kicked down the road for when Putin decides on another escapade.
It is a terrible situation. But it is the one we have to deal with.
If Putin is serious about nuclear warfare, the only way out resides within the Kremlin.
Putin may have only a few cards left. The West have fewer options if he is as good as his word.
Appeasement is not an option. It will only lead to further suffering in Ukraine and the nuclear can kicked down the road for when Putin decides on another escapade.
It is a terrible situation. But it is the one we have to deal with.
The only deterrent against nuclear war is the same as it's always been, mutual annihilation. Hopefully if Putin is so far deranged as to forget that or not care, then someone else in the hierarchy between him and the button does remember and refuses to carry out the order
It's not up to Biden. You can't appease a madman like Putin, it's simply not possible. Give him Ukraine because he threatens nukes and then he starts targeting the other Baltic states. And then what if fat leader in North Korea gets the same idea? Would you let him have all of the Korean peninsula if he threatens Seoul with a nuke? How about China demanding the US leave Taiwan or they nuke Taipei? If you give in to one lunatic's demands simply for threatening nuclear war, then the entire planet goes to #### regardless
The outcome is not up to Biden alone, but the choice for the US to attempt de-escalation is up to Biden. Biden is just the one who made that statement. Every leader on every side who believes that there is a real risk of nuclear war should be dedicated to ensuring that's not how this ends.
What is the worst case scenario via de-escalation? Imagine that, then take Biden at his word and compare the worst case scenario of de-escalation to actual nuclear Armageddon as Biden suggests is on the table. There is no way that the worst case scenario from attempting de-escalation is worse than the consequences of actual nuclear war.
I don't know if Biden is being truthful or not in his statements, but if he is then what's on the table is billions of people dying. Just a conventional war in Ukraine has already led to mass hunger and starvation in other parts of the world. If the world is actually facing a rapid slippery slope of escalation into nuclear war, then the entire world is facing the possibility of hunger and starvation, at least those who survive will be. Pretty much anything is better than that.
The world would be a better place if nukes had never been invented, but they do exist and ignoring the potential consequences of their use on a matter of principle about appeasement is madness. False dichotomies of 'either you give Putin nothing or North Korea will take over South Korea' are just fantasies that should be completely ignored if the real situation on the table is de-escalation with Russia now vs. nuclear Armageddon now.
It's entirely possible that Biden is exaggerating the risk for the sake of persuading donors at a fund raiser or to drum up support for some other action he wants to take and we are not actually at the brink of nuclear Armageddon. I am hoping and kind of assuming that is probably the case. I find it hard to imagine anyone, even Putin, actually choosing this future and enough people in the chain of command going along with it to make it happen. That said, if Biden's not exaggerating and can be taken for his word on this, then take some time this weekend to appreciate how this Thanksgiving could be the last you have with friends/family.
De-escalation does not imply waving the white flag. It can just mean stepping back from the precipice to work on alternatives that save more lives and make a better future.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The problem with Calgary is that we won't even get hit. Not important enough.
We're the unlucky ones who will starve to death during nuclear winter whereas folks in big and powerful Western cities will be painlessly vaporized.
Anyone have any good ol fashioned cyanide pills?
Fata cyanide pills. I'm going to get me some heroin, meth...all the good stuff. Would be awesome to just be a tweaker for a month or two before going down for the long nap.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
The outcome is not up to Biden alone, but the choice for the US to attempt de-escalation is up to Biden. Biden is just the one who made that statement. Every leader on every side who believes that there is a real risk of nuclear war should be dedicated to ensuring that's not how this ends.
What is the worst case scenario via de-escalation? Imagine that, then take Biden at his word and compare the worst case scenario of de-escalation to actual nuclear Armageddon as Biden suggests is on the table. There is no way that the worst case scenario from attempting de-escalation is worse than the consequences of actual nuclear war.
I don't know if Biden is being truthful or not in his statements, but if he is then what's on the table is billions of people dying. Just a conventional war in Ukraine has already led to mass hunger and starvation in other parts of the world. If the world is actually facing a rapid slippery slope of escalation into nuclear war, then the entire world is facing the possibility of hunger and starvation, at least those who survive will be. Pretty much anything is better than that.
The world would be a better place if nukes had never been invented, but they do exist and ignoring the potential consequences of their use on a matter of principle about appeasement is madness. False dichotomies of 'either you give Putin nothing or North Korea will take over South Korea' are just fantasies that should be completely ignored if the real situation on the table is de-escalation with Russia now vs. nuclear Armageddon now.
It's entirely possible that Biden is exaggerating the risk for the sake of persuading donors at a fund raiser or to drum up support for some other action he wants to take and we are not actually at the brink of nuclear Armageddon. I am hoping and kind of assuming that is probably the case. I find it hard to imagine anyone, even Putin, actually choosing this future and enough people in the chain of command going along with it to make it happen. That said, if Biden's not exaggerating and can be taken for his word on this, then take some time this weekend to appreciate how this Thanksgiving could be the last you have with friends/family.
De-escalation does not imply waving the white flag. It can just mean stepping back from the precipice to work on alternatives that save more lives and make a better future.
Guy. It's Putin at the precipice who needs to step back. Nobody pushed him there. Nobody prodded him there. No other country can walk him back. He's standing there alone. Nobody is threatening him with nuclear weapons; he's doing all the threatening.
Your inability to evaluate and understand this situation is utterly astounding.
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
That Russian airbase is half way between the Ukraine border, and Moscow. Apparently Ukraine's drones can at least operate successfully that deep into Russian territory.
Guy. It's Putin at the precipice who needs to step back. Nobody pushed him there. Nobody prodded him there. No other country can walk him back. He's standing there alone. Nobody is threatening him with nuclear weapons; he's doing all the threatening.
Your inability to evaluate and understand this situation is utterly astounding.
The feeling is mutual.
Putin is the one with his finger on the trigger, but we're all on the precipice if what Biden said is true. Stopping him from pulling the trigger should be everyone's concern. Whether that ultimately comes via assassination, internal revolt/coup, disabling their systems, or something else, all successful outcomes depend upon that trigger not being pulled. There is no successful outcome that includes nuclear war. Fortunately, no country/individual's choices exist in a bubble. Everyone is subject to having choices affected by changing circumstances and outside influence.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The only deterrent against nuclear war is the same as it's always been, mutual annihilation. Hopefully if Putin is so far deranged as to forget that or not care, then someone else in the hierarchy between him and the button does remember and refuses to carry out the order
I don't have much faith in the hierarchy between Putin and the button. Governments like Russia and the USA for that matter, have done a lot of research on the psychological aspect of following orders that I think they know how to make it happen if they want. From what I read, the steps between ordering the nuclear strike to the people in the field that actually make it happen, are laid out in such a way that no one involved will really feel like they are doing anything extraordinary. Think about how a firing squad will have some shooter with blanks to remove the guilt or moral reservations someone has. Kind of like that, but on a more complex scale. Add to that, the level of automation involved now that may force a launch based on pre-determined conditions. For example, Putin might put them in a state of ready where a launch automatically occurs after a certain amount of time unless some type of variable changes or he physically does something like entering a password that only he knows. People around him might think, well no problem, there is plenty of time to ensure the required variables occur and we can always pressure him to call it off if we need to. The urgency could be removed and if there is something humans love, it is buying time until it is too late. If someone were to stop it after Putin made the order, I think it would need to be immediate action to remove him, and I don't have a lot of faith in that.
The thing that scares me is that mutually assured destruction is a scenario almost certain to play out one day. Whether it is tomorrow or 200 years from now, I don't know, but I think it is only a matter of time until someone fanatical and bitter enough comes along and puts things in motion. Think about the kind of people who do mass shooting, suicide bombings, murder suicides of their families. Whether that is Putin or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked. Eventually, someone will come into power somewhere who is deranged enough though, in my opinion.
To make matters even worse, there is concern that a level of AI may be used one day, if it isn't already, to decide whether or not to launch. That scares the crap out of me.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Putin is the one with his finger on the trigger, but we're all on the precipice if what Biden said is true. Stopping him from pulling the trigger should be everyone's concern. Whether that ultimately comes via assassination, internal revolt/coup, disabling their systems, or something else, all successful outcomes depend upon that trigger not being pulled. There is no successful outcome that includes nuclear war. Fortunately, no country/individual's choices exist in a bubble. Everyone is subject to having choices affected by changing circumstances and outside influence.
Everyone you’re arguing with understands this.
Nobody here needs to watch a video of what a nuclear war looks like from space to understand the gravitas of the situation.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
The way to not have nuclear war is to make it extremely clear that if Putin uses nuclear weapons his dream of a Russian empire ends, because Russia does not exist any longer.
You give in to him now, he takes what he wants in the future because he knows you'll blink.
Stare him right in the face and tell him if you pull the trigger, the first response is going to land right on top of his little 5'5" head, and then the rest of his country ten seconds later.
He blinks.
Maybe he doesn't.
But you can't be the one to blink first, otherwise NATO and the entire premise behind it falls apart.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
Sounds flippant when discussing nuclear war. But it is the reality of where we are at right now.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
