Any use of any nuclear device would lose Russia whatever respect it still has on the world stage, this would be the last straw that every nation in the General Assembly will not fail to condemn. — FreeEmotion

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West. If the use of nuclear weapons is so problematic, one wonders why the USA is still respected.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.” — Xtrix

I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil.

The general public does not differentiate between 'tactical' nuclear weapons or 'low yield' nuclear weapons. — FreeEmotion

..from strategic nuclear weapons.

And likely not in the mood to hear anyone say that it was only[/ii] a small warhead.

Just to make this point: how many people would remember hearing about the Fukushima nuclear accident compared to hearing about the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami? The latter's name wouldn't be so familiar than Fukushima. Yet the tsunami killed nearly 20 000 while deaths from the Fukushima accident ...are none, actually.

President Putin did put in a successor before - Medvedev, so it need not involve high drama. It would be a good tactical move. "Putin did it - he is now powerless, deal with me" — FreeEmotion

North Korea would be more respectable than Russia then. Just changing persons likely isn't enough.

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West. — Benkei

I'm not so sure about that. Likely the West would put sanctions on those countries that carry on as if nothing had happened. The big issue is what China would do. So you can end up with basically a divided World and the end of globalization.

The basic problem is that Putin's Russia sees itself as what either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was and it is this that makes it so dangerous. It's like if after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Austrian leaders had decided that it was a temporary setback and all the new countries are under it's "sphere of influence". And then it would started annexing territories and intervening in the countries.

The Russian's have to wake up sometime to understand that the empire has gone. Perhaps a disastrous war will help them with this.

Watch out with the amount of evils, Olivier. :wink:

The basic problem is that Putin's Russia sees itself as what either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was and it is this that makes it so dangerous — ssu

The 'basic problem' is that Russia is attempting not to be nothing but another vassal-state to a US governed world economic order, and this is a big no-no and cannot be tolerated. That Russia's response has been a murderous war of aggression is of course squarely on it's shoulders, but to think that Russian nationalism is a problem that popped out of nowhere rather than a response to global conditions set almost entirely by the West is a farce.

The 'basic problem' is that Russia is attempting not to be nothing but another vassal-state to a US governed world economic order, and this is a big no-no and cannot be tolerated. — StreetlightX

I think that there's actually many countries that want to keep a distance to the US. Like China and also India. Remember the BRIC countries? Yet Brazil, India or China haven't attacked for some time their neighbors.

, but to think that Russian nationalism is a problem that popped out of nowhere rather than a response to global conditions set almost entirely by the West is a farce. — StreetlightX

It hasn't popped out of nowhere.

Basically Russian history tells us how we got here. While other countries gathered colonies, Russia conquered more territory to be Russia, not colonies of Russia. And then this Imperial territory changed into an union of Soviet Republics still holding it's borders (that had been pushed even further after WW2). Hence when the Soviet Union collapsed, then was collapsing the last empire that there was. Even in Russia itself there is an internal dynamic going on here. It starts from things like the slavophiles vs the zapadniks, far before the US was any important player in the global theater.

Basically Russian history tells us how we got here. While other countries gathered colonies, Russia conquered more territory to be Russia, not colonies of Russia. — ssu

Yeah, no, this is just straight racism. No thanks.

I think that there's actually many countries that want to keep a distance to the US. Like China and also India. Remember the BRIC countries? — ssu

Ah yes, China, the great friend of the US and totally not subject to bouts and bouts of extreme sinophobia all the time, every day. And India, who, because they haven't stood with the US on Ukraine, suddenly find themselves subject to investigations into 'human rights abuses' all of a sudden from the US.

Yeah, no, this is just straight racism. No thanks. — StreetlightX

?

If India was colonized by Great Britain and Kazakh Khanate by Russia, what is racist? It's a fact. The only difference is that other imperialist Great Power continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union. People don't just see the colonialism in Russia.

Don't then leave Brazil out of the club. When Brazil decided to get into lucrative satellite launching service with their own space program, one country deeply opposed this. I think you know who.

@ssu do you think it's a good idea for Finland to join NATO? Or is there any alternative in the world of the possible (including the improbable) that you would prefer?

Do you think a referendum on a European army would give different results if we'd have one now?

Don't then leave Brazil out of the club. When Brazil decided to get into lucrative satellite launching service with their own space program, one country deeply opposed this. I think you know who. — ssu

I don't. Or was this about who got to launch the satellites? India vs US?

so you think it's a good idea for Finland to join NATO? Or is there any alternative in the world of the possible (including the improbable) that you would prefer? — Benkei

We are only fooling ourselves now, actually. Everybody can see how reckless Russia can be.

Do you think a referendum on a European army would give different results if we'd have one now? — Benkei

Oh boy!

Would the Finns have liked that! EU having a defensive dimension was a wet dream of many Finnish politicians. Something extremely easy to "join"...as we already are in the EU.

That actually would happen if Trump would have it's way and he would have dissolved NATO.

If India was colonized by Great Britain and Kazakh Khanate by Russia, what is racist? It's a fact. The only difference is that other imperialist Great Power continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union. People don't just see the colonialism in Russia. — ssu

[Group of people X] have always been violent. Therefore, this explains why [group of people X] will continue to be violent. "These are just facts. It's just history bro". Maybe try to be less racist.

I don't. Or was this about who got to launch the satellites? India vs US? — Benkei

Brazil was the case. But of course India is another player too.

Basically the US uses it's foreign policy to keep competition out. Now usually it happens with trade barriers, whereby it just shoots itself in the foot as industries protected by trade barriers don't have to compete. With space tech it can push out competition on the basis that naturally if have rockets that can put satellites into space, you can also make intercontinental ballistic missiles.

But this is the typical assholery that nearly every country can do. But yet international trade happens and the US isn't on the top of everything.

[Group of people X] have always been violent. Therefore, this explains why [group of people X] will continue to be violent. "These are just facts". Maybe try to be less racist. — StreetlightX

Ah, I understand your point. I don't like the rhetoric of "Russians will never change" or "Russia will never be democratic" either.

Well, I think a lot of Russian aren't happy with imperialist bullshit of Putin. A lot of Russians are against the present militarism and policies that Putin is driving.

Hopefully a disastrous war will make them really to change course. Usually countries change course dramatically only when everybody can see what a disaster the previous course was.

The unfortunate thing was that the US didn't have and seems it won't have a rethink after it's 20 year war in Afghanistan -debacle. Perhaps too few Americans died for there to be that discussion.

Usually countries change course dramatically only when everybody can see what a disaster the previous course was. — ssu

This I can agree with. Unfortuntely, without any recognition of the role that the West has played in bringing this disaster about - and subsequently affecting change there too - such sentiments are just more White Man's Burden bullshit.

This I can agree with. Unfortuntely, without any recognition of the role that the West has played in bringing this disaster about - and subsequently affecting change there too - such sentiments are just more White Man's Burden bullshit. — StreetlightX

When errors are made, they should be pointed out.

Yet the agency and agendas of all players ought not be forgotten. Looking at the events from the agenda and objectives of one player, the West or more plainly the US and it's administrations, doesn't give you a correct view.

, it's no longer news, and hasn't been for some time: No NATO membership for Ukraine (said both by NATO and Ukraine). It hasn't been an excuse for a while. Bombs are still going, though, which sort of makes the demand/excuse a bit suspect. And, going by rumors, Russia is ramping up military "operations" (convoys, conscriptions, whatever), instead of committing more to diplomacy/negotiations/assurances.

So, the wretched nuclear ☢ (plus perhaps ☣ ⚗) scenario... The threat has been made by Putin and taken seriously enough. I doubt anyone wants to call him out on it, yet how far can the "hostage-taking" be taken? Where's the threshold (if any)? Presumably, Putin making good on his threats would be.

Yet the agency and agendas of all players ought not be forgotten. Looking at the events from the agenda and objectives of one player, the West or more plainly the US and it's administrations, doesn't give you a correct view. — ssu

It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation.

It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation. — StreetlightX

Keep up the good work. :up:

Thanks bae

There's a path from here directly to global nuclear war. Can't say that every day.

It's still in their constitution and to ensure long term neutrality, giving Donetsk and Luhansk independence in a federal relationship with the rest of Ukraine means pro-Russian regions can veto federal policy. So that seems the goal for the Russians to me. Russia is better off with those regions continuing to be part of Ukraine to keep it "neutral" so they will be prepared to negotiate. Also, this was pretty much the goal of the Minsk agreements. Second best would be full independence from their perspective.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has signaled it will only accept neutrality if that is guaranteed by other counties than Russia. However, those other countries do not want another "article 5"-like obligation towards Ukraine.

I think the second point is harder to solve but clearly reflects a legitimate interest of Ukraine, so it needs to be solved. The only way there is probably us the US and Russia negotiate a non-intervention treaty to stop fucking around in Ukrainian internal politics. However, the US so far refused to take part in negotiations. I think that has to do with the "bleed the Russians" policy.

If it does, I do hope nuclear winter and global warming cancel each other out.

Looking at the events from the agenda and objectives of one player, the West or more plainly the US and it's administrations, doesn't give you a correct view. — ssu

Looking at events from the agenda only of hairdressing doesn't give you a correct view, so that too should be avoided. Fortunately no one's doing that either.

On a more serious note, the morality of a military alliance such as NATO seems an interesting question, in terms of what criteria should be used. How would one recognise a 'moral alliance', or perhaps more modestly a 'legitimate defense league', and what's the difference with an 'unholy alliance' or an 'imperialist clique'?

We cannot use common human morality criteria, such as 'thou shall not kill' because evidently military folks do kill people occasionally. It's their job.

The kind of criteria to use are at governance level, the level studied by Macchiaveli, Marx and co. At this level, one may kill Peter to save Paul, so to speak. Things get complicated.

One criterion I would use is whether independent states can join the alliance and leave it on their own will, free of coercion, and based on some democratic process. Because then one can conclude that the alliance stems from the legitimate will of legitimate governments.

Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression.

No NATO membership for Ukraine (said both by NATO and Ukraine). It hasn't been an excuse for a while. — jorndoe

As I pointed out. Putin's speech clearly shows that his agenda is not limited to a simple binary promise. He associates NATO membership, EU membership and economic ties with US imperialism, interference and a sort of 'Western decadence'. It's going to take more than a casual promise. After all, NATO-Russia relations have stumbled over casual promises before ("not an inch eastwards"), no?

Russia is ramping up military "operations" (convoys, conscriptions, whatever), instead of committing more to diplomacy/negotiations/assurances. — jorndoe

But again there's this dual narrative. Is Russia losing or not? If Russia are losing, then you can hardly cite a ramping up of military commitment as an indication of their having wider objectives. If they're losing, then they'll need to ramp up military commitments just to maintain the pressure they currently have. If, on the other hand, you want to go with the idea that this additional military investment is intended to add additional pressure, for further objectives, then we can't also have the narrative that Russia are about to lose and only a little more pressure could see them off.

So, the wretched nuclear ☢ (plus perhaps ☣ ⚗) scenario... The threat has been made by Putin and taken seriously enough. I doubt anyone wants to call him out on it, yet how far can the "hostage-taking" be taken? Where's the threshold (if any)? — jorndoe

The trouble is not with the question of thresholds, the trouble is with the assumption about methods. Putin's "hostage-taking" ought not to be be taken any distance at all. It ought to be resisted from day one. But that resistance needn't be military. The lack of non-military options is not a result of there being none, it's a direct result of America and Europe simply not wanting to explore any.

If it does, I do hope nuclear winter and global warming cancel each other out. — Benkei

That would be nice, but I don't think it works that way.

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West.
— Benkei
I'm not so sure about that. Likely the West would put sanctions on those countries that carry on as if nothing had happened. — ssu

Doing business under a nuclear discount "I will be paying for Russian oil in Rupees, you nuclear junkies"

The Russian's have to wake up sometime to understand that the empire has gone. Perhaps a disastrous war will help them with this. — ssu

I see it this way: Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the Western Elites (WE) not the United States (US).

>(2) doesn't even mention 'defending one's nation'. Not to mention it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself.

It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient.


> None of that means Zelensky is 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances as some kind of rule 'one must always be constrained by the de facto circumstances' It just so happens that the actual de facto circumstances in this case are morally relevant because lives will be expended in trying to improve on them.

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. And this too has moral relevance: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”.


> Here, for example is a paper on the multi-causal analysis of the conflict in Algeria from Oxford University. Either point out the maths that I've clearly missed in that paper, or take up with Oxford University, their evident lack of deference to your greater knowledge in this regard.

A part from the fact that in this paper there is a certain amount of stats from politics, demographics, economics (necessary to support related explanatory hypothesis), that the analysis is systemic (and so it goes beyond the intended or foreseeable consequences of decision makers), and that you didn’t offer any such analysis, the point is that we are talking about blame and moral responsibility of Zelensky wrt Putin, or Western administrations wrt Putin, and if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. Or else, stop talking about multi-causal analysis pointlessly (since you didn’t offer any anyways), and start reasoning in terms of moral responsibility by analogy with legal responsibility assessment, as much as a judge would do on a crime case trial (whence my problem with your blaming the victim attitude). That’s also relevant to address moral implications in terms of a criterium of proportionality.


> I mean you've not given reasons for your choice of method. You've said you take into account what others value, for example. You've not said why you do that.

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember?
On my side, I find quite preposterous to claim that somebody is making arbitrary claims only because he didn’t tell you what his reasons for his claims are yet.
Besides that’s my take about arbitrary moral claims:
“ I’m not judging based on my own preferences alone, nor am I judging without rationally processing a load of information which include people preferences among other things (for example, the feedback from different experts concerning the strategic stakes of this war). So my moral approach is the opposite of “arbitrary” as I understand the word “arbitrary”. Actually that’s the reason why I support this approach.
On the contrary, I find arbitrary your claim that fighting a war for one’s nation is no doubt always immoral, precisely because it doesn’t take into account what other people value, but only what you value (i.e. life) and prior to any rational processing of the situation at hand.”

> I don't need to prove they are more plausible, or more likely to be the case because you didn't make the original claim that you merely preferred your opinion, or found it more plausible. Your claim was that the alternative was actually 'preposterous'.

> Remember, what I'm arguing against here is your claims that alternative positions are 'preposterous'. The fact that you can come up with scenarios which are plausible to support your position doesn't support that claim. You'd have to show that these scenarios were somehow the only plausible outcomes.

> Because assessing my alternatives is not necessary for a successful critique of your position. For your position to hold you'd have to support the claim that there literally are no alternatives.
No solutions other than the one you prefer. That's ridiculous, hence a stupid line of argument. The point I'm making here only requires that other solutions exist and it's 'stupid' to deny that.

I didn’t claim nor implied anywhere that “there literally are no alternatives”, “No solutions other than the one you [referred to me] prefer”. The way you frame my position is not just a fallacious straw men argument, but probably a delusional projection of your own “stupid” views (by your own definition). Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral.
Your 2 claims looked pretty much radical, peremptory and one-sided, so incompatible with alternative or more nuanced views. That is why I didn’t hesitate in calling them preposterous and argued against them. Then you insisted on supporting your preposterous claims with further claims (some of which still sounded preposterous to me) , I counter-argued against them too. And so on. And add to that your reluctance to properly argue and clarify your own views which just reinforced my impression of your close-mindedness.
If you simply presented your position as a dilemma over option1 and option2 from the start, I would have still argued the way I did in the related comment, but I wouldn’t have called your dilemma nor your preference for option2 preposterous as I didn’t do it in the related comment.


> Yeah, right. You just conducted a completely impartial assessment of the evidence, sure.

Didn’t claim nor implied I’m impartial, I just said how it works with me. For example, I didn’t get interested in this war because triggered by strong prior biases against “Russian imperialism” (actually, before the war started, I had stronger prior biases against “American imperialism”, after seeing what they have done in the Middle East) and then looked for whatever expert (with titles and no evident conflict of interest) supported a narrative accusing “Russian imperialism” also for the war in Ukraine. I started with the war news in Ukraine and from there I did my research for expert advise (this rebalanced my attitude toward “American imperialism”)

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”

> since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? — neomac
Interesting. What exactly did you expect to get from this? You fabricate a position you know full well I wouldn't admit to holding (that I support Russia) then ask a transparent 'thought experiment' the answer to which expects me to admit to the one position you already knew I wouldn't admit to. Surely you can see the flaw in that strategy?

No idea what you are talking about. And at this point it doesn’t really matter what you are ready to admit. For me, you can remove Russia from my thought experiment and put any other you like, say Venezuela or China or India or Tibet or Malta. The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? Don’t waste your time guessing my expectations. I can’t remember a single time you succeeded.


> If someone is sufficiently qualified and without any conflict of interest, you're not in a position to dismiss their conclusions as dubious simply because you don't like them or they're not what you expected.

It’s pointless to guess things when I clarified already my position (“I can compare for example their titles or their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts, etc.”, “double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge”). Besides I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

> Really? If you were looking for a military expert you've no idea how to tell if they're qualified? Is there some compelling reason university tenure and/or doctorate-level qualification would be insufficient for you?

> How? If you're a non-expert, how can you meaningfully compare their arguments? And what relevance does it have how much they converge with the opinion of other experts?

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine.

> Where, in that, do I "praise" a Russian puppet government?

Just poor phrasing on my part due to the fact that I was thinking in terms of comparative advertising strategy: roughly, praise one option over the other to suggest the option to choose without actually saying it. The point is still that in framing the negotiation options, the option you presented in a positive light and support include the Russian puppet government, by contrast, the option you presented in a negative light and reject included Zelensky’s government. Besides the mention of the Russian puppet government in the option you support was unnecessary (for this condition was already withdrawn by the Russians and you could have simply kept Zelensky’s government) and unmotivated, therefore suspicious: as if this inclusion was implicitly motivated by whatever reason one could imagine you would plausibly support (e.g. avoiding the risk of future clashes between Zelensky and Putin, punishing Zelensky’s immoral political conduct in this war, keeping up the hostility against the American capitalist imperialism, pleasing Putin for mercy, etc.) in light of your other claims about Zelensky, the West, etc.
From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it.


> Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. — neomac
So?

Never mind. I thought you wanted to suggest experts who support option2, instead of generically pointing to the same experts' quotations we have already discussed, which would be pointless.

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless. Now for the third time. And that’s it.

> 'Similar' and 'the same' are similar, but not the same.

Impressive yet so pointless. The 2 cases were similar because they both fell under the same general principle you suggested here: “If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.” Now, if from that general principle follows that Zelensky is blameworthy, then the same holds for the poor. And that’s it.

> I have to prove nothing of the sort because I'm not the one claiming your position is preposterous. Look back at our conversation. Who made claims and who questioned them?

>Again, I'm not putting claims out there for you to analyse. Why you'd think I'd want want some laymen off the internet to analyse my claims is beyond me.

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on.

> Your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I've not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).

No dude, if you do not want to play the game, then let’s close it here, but you don’t get to decide what the rules of the game are for me. On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. Period.

If the use of nuclear weapons is so problematic, one wonders why the USA is still respected. — Benkei

As I have explained before, when the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, they were on the side of many of the nations of the world that were actually attacked by Japan: China, India, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia. Those bombs were dropped from our side, the Asian side, by the allies who were protecting the east actively, and sacrificing their lives.

Ukraine did not attack India and China, and they are not at war with Ukraine. If bombs fall on those we support, or sympathize with, we say it is bad. If bombs are dropped on a nation that saw it fit to carry out a massive imperialist drive across oceans land and attack us, then we think that is good.