As ↪Olivier5
pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. — ssu
Probably you missed a couple of things about the expert you cite, Tyler Cowen — neomac
First and foremost, this is a sabre rattling response to Russia's sabre rattling, the potential use of nuclear weapons with conventional forces. And this response hasn't been official. It has been given to the media by other retired people, who have said that this kind of response has given to Russian counterparts behind closed doors, not openly.Not nuclear weapons as a first response. What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter. If this happens (US troops go inside Ukraine), then we are really playing with lava, not fire.
Of course, anyone using the first nuke, must know what the consequences will be, not only for their country, but for the world. — Manuel
Nothing new, but dramatic changes can happen.Ironic that the Russian army has bloodthirsty neo-Nazis in their employ. Nothing new though I guess. — jorndoe
This is what is basically left now for Putin. No overthrow of the Ukrainian government and replacement with a pro-Russian regime, no larger Novorossiya.Anyway, they seem noticeably keen on keeping Crimea Russian. Also a land corridor via Donbas in addition to Kerch. Not a lease on otherwise neutral ground or whatever, but secured Russian land, which any strong military would have gotten in the way of (and still might). — jorndoe
Why would I care in the slightest about your assessment of the Cowen article? If I want an economist's critique, I'll ask an economist, not some nobody on an internet chat forum. You're not qualified to say to what extent Cowen's conclusions are reasonable. — Isaac
I made a point about post war reconstruction being always an opportunity for profiteering, you said that wasn't true because of the Marshal plan. — Isaac
To maintain that critique you have to show that it is not possible that it's true - ie that no experts think that. — Isaac
If you want to start claiming my position is actually wrong, or untenable, then we have an asymmetric argument. To support my position I only need to show it's plausible. To support yours you need to show mine is actually impossible. — Isaac
These are false alternatives. One could simply argue that his position is more plausible than yours. That’s what I’m doing. — neomac
Why would I care in the slightest about your assessment of my of assessment of the Cowen article? — neomac
If you disagree with his conclusion I couldn't care less, because you're not qualified to judge the validity of his conclusion. — Isaac
No. One couldn't. Not unless one is a qualified economist. — Isaac
It's a pattern repeated over and over - War -> reconstruction requirements -> corporate opportunity to screw everyone.
I can't think of a single example from history where that's gone well for the inhabitants. Can you? — Isaac
Yeah, it could well be sable rattling. Nukes would only be used if NATO fights Russia, in Ukraine they would serve little purpose outside of mass murder, with little by way of military advantage, if any. — Manuel
but the idea they wouldn't provide any tactical military advantage is I think extremely foolish. The relevance being that the purely military motivation to use them is genuine, and therefore political effort should be made to avoid that happening — boethius
If they use them in Ukraine, not as a reaction to NATO getting directly involved, then by using them they will get NATO directly involved. — Manuel
But that's the threat of use, not the actual use. Actual use as of now, would be suicide. — Manuel
Either we win, or you lose. — Putin (para)
Understood, sir. — Manager (para)
Donetsk ···· 99.2% Luhansk ···· 98.4% Zaporizhia · 93.1% Kherson ···· 87.1%
Frankly speaking, I was not just happy, but surprised with the results of the referendums. [...] We've decided and I've decided for myself: it's going to be how the people say. And the results are more than convincing and absolutely transparent, beyond any doubt. — Putin
This is a subject of the Russian Federation, this status is legally defined and fixed. There are no and cannot be any changes here. — The Kremlin said that the Kherson region remains a Russian region · Dmitry Peskov · Nov 11, 2022
Logic being that it would be morally and politically justifiable for the US to retaliate with conventional weapons and Russia would have no moral or political justification to respond with nuclear weapons against the US, and so if they could not respond in kind conventionally then it does make sense.
However, the Russians can also retaliate conventionally to a US conventional retaliation, such as cutting undersea communication cables and blowing up satellites, even cause a full on Kesler syndrome, and the Russian made clear to explain to the Americans and the media that they can and would do these things.
Fortunately for the world these scenarios did not play out, but that would be the likely next phase of a nuclear strike in Ukraine. The followup question would be what the US retaliation to the Russian retaliation would be, and the Russian response to that, and if that cycle would end by one of the parties or would a conventional retaliation, if bad enough, provoke a nuclear retaliation. — boethius
Kherson is free. — Olivier5
That was fast . — Olivier5
The Kremlin's spokesman meanwhile rejects that losing the key southern city is a humiliation for Vladimir Putin. — Olivier5
Well, what has been conveyed to Russia is that NATO would reply seriously, taken to mean, destruction of the Russian military by conventional means. How the heck does that not practically guarantee a nuclear response? — Manuel
That's just another blatant lie. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.