Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 330 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,536
2,828
136
Wow, I've never seen you make such a dickish remark on this forum. I don't want hundreds of millions, or billions, to die in a nuclear holocaust, so I must be "OK" with Russia gassing Ukraine. Is that really your argument?



Yes, but if they have nukes, economic consequences, not military ones.
So we let them deploy WMDs wit impunity until they exhaust their stockpile cause we're scared they might deploy WMDs? I understand the scale matters but if it legitimately comes to that were past the point of no return and all options should be on the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,003
12,067
146
Welcome to every fictional scenario about how a global thermonuclear war starts.

Seriously, people need to THINK first before advocating something disastrous that is based on emotion.
Cool. I'm against gassing Jews, even in Europe. I guess you are cool with it.

WMD usage should always be met with severe and immediate consequences. Especially when done offensively.
It'd help each of you to see the other's viewpoint if you both accept the very real probability that we're looking at our Great Filter.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,003
12,067
146
Do you believe that our actions and choices have no influence whatsoever on possible outcomes?
Of course, but there's a very real possibility that every action and choice we make at this point leads to the same outcome, just via different routes. If Putin uses a WMD of any kind, and we respond, it will likely lead to a nuclear response. If he uses a WMD of any kind and we do not respond, it'll likely lead to a nuclear event, either from Putin himself, or from an eventual future invasion by Putin on a NATO country... which will demand a response, which will go nuclear.

So, what sequence of events do you see playing out that don't involve someone physically close to Putin just shooting him that will not lead to a nuclear event?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
Are you nuts? What is the logical progression after chemical weapons, and do we want to be in a hot war with Russia when that happens?

I'm against any sort of US or NATO military involvement in this war, for any reason. Even if Russia nukes Ukrainian cities. Especially if they nuke Ukrainian cities.
You should think before you type. The US is very involved in this war, we're supplying all sorts of assistance to Ukraine, weapons and otherwise. We've stopped short of sending troops to Ukrainian soil and setting up a NFZ. Biden has warned Putin that use of WMD on Ukraine will have major consequences. If Putin gets too nasty I think a NFZ is quite possible. I think that targeted attacks of installations in Russia are not off the table if those are directly involved with perpetrating WMD assaults on Ukraine. We've got to draw lines somewhere, not let Putin do whatever he wants to do because of his saber rattling his nukes and chemical weapons. This is the modern world. It's been like this for decades. It hasn't changed. What's changed is Putin's willingness to be a very bad citizen on the world stage, he's been crossing some lines he didn't before. He has to pay for those transgressions. Saw a segment of 60 minutes a couple days ago and they guy most in charge of designing the sanctions against Russia explained that the Russians need to conclude that this whole episode was "a strategic failure." Meantime, I don't believe we can/should sit on our hands if Russia resorts to WMD and wait for our sanctions to do this for us. We should make them conclude that their turning to WMD was a very bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
You should think before you type. The US is very involved in this war, we're supplying all sorts of assistance to Ukraine, weapons and otherwise.
He has given up. There are such unfortunates.
 

adamsleath

Member
May 4, 2007
118
40
101
Cool. I'm against gassing Jews, even in Europe. I guess you are cool with it.

WMD usage should always be met with severe and immediate consequences. Especially when done offensively.
living like cockroaches in a fallout shelter ?

Always ?

This isn't 1945.

Unfortunately . The messaging needs to be clearly no nukes. It is unfortunate that they even exist at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
living like cockroaches in a fallout shelter ?

Always ?

This isn't 1945.

Unfortunately . The messaging needs to be clearly no nukes. It is unfortunate that they even exist at all.
Well, they exist. What would be unfortunate at this point is that they be used... same with chemical weapons. Actually, war should be delegitimized. That's part of this whole thing since Feb. 24.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Of course, but there's a very real possibility that every action and choice we make at this point leads to the same outcome, just via different routes. If Putin uses a WMD of any kind, and we respond, it will likely lead to a nuclear response. If he uses a WMD of any kind and we do not respond, it'll likely lead to a nuclear event, either from Putin himself, or from an eventual future invasion by Putin on a NATO country... which will demand a response, which will go nuclear.

So, what sequence of events do you see playing out that don't involve someone physically close to Putin just shooting him that will not lead to a nuclear event?

Yes, anything could happen with either choice. That is why, particularly when we're talking about mass survival, you play probabilities. If Putin uses WMD in Ukraine and we do not respond with military force, but respond by having us and Europe literally shut down all trade with Russia, then just wait it out, there's a good chance a nuclear war would not happen. Either because Putin knows they'll be nuked if he attacks a NATO country, or because Putin gets deposed because of the sorry state of the Russian economy. That choice gives us a good chance to avoid the unthinkable outcome. Going in directly with military force greatly increases the chance of it occurring.

And to be clear that I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Ukraine, here is what we should be doing right now: shipping off 100's of thousands of gas masks and other protective gear to Ukraine. I mean right now. If we haven't already done so.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,449
9,834
136
Wow, I've never seen you make such a dickish remark on this forum. I don't want hundreds of millions, or billions, to die in a nuclear holocaust, so I must be "OK" with Russia gassing Ukraine. Is that really your argument?



Yes, but if they have nukes, economic consequences, not military ones.
I was purposely being over the top dickish, just because it was a good opportunity, not because I actually think you are okay with it.

I've agreed with you that we shouldn't get directly involved. But I think WMD usage should be a redline to come to Ukraine's defense at least to the point that we stop the gassing. Even in that case, our involvement should be very limited. But I don't think we should set the precedent that if you have nukes you can just start gassing cities without consequence.

Regardless, we need to make Putin at least think there will be real consequences for using them.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I was purposely being over the top dickish, just because it was a good opportunity, not because I actually think you are okay with it.

I've agreed with you that we shouldn't get directly involved. But I think WMD usage should be a redline to come to Ukraine's defense at least to the point that we stop the gassing. Even in that case, our involvement should be very limited. But I don't think we should set the precedent that if you have nukes you can just start gassing cities without consequence.

Regardless, we need to make Putin at least think there will be real consequences for using them.

Yes, like I said, economic consequences. And the reality is, unpalatable though it may be, a nuclear armed country can gas cities without expecting a military response from countries not directly involved or formally allied. That is the reality of the leverage that nukes give you. Because it isn't rational to risk national extinction to protect another country from chemical weapons. It just isn't.

Fortunately, this is not 1939, when Germany was largely self-sufficient and barely had any foreign trade. This world is economically interdependent. For example, if China wasn't trading with the US, it's more than possible, even likely, that they would have invaded Taiwan already.

Severe sanctions won't end the murderous behavior in Ukraine, not in the short term. But give it time and it's likely to solve the problem one way or another.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,003
12,067
146
Yes, anything could happen with either choice. That is why, particularly when we're talking about mass survival, you play probabilities. If Putin uses WMD in Ukraine and we do not respond with military force, but respond by having us and Europe literally shut down all trade with Russia, then just wait it out, there's a good chance a nuclear war would not happen. Either because Putin knows they'll be nuked if he attacks a NATO country, or because Putin gets deposed because of the sorry state of the Russian economy. That choice gives us a good chance to avoid the unthinkable outcome. Going in directly with military force greatly increases the chance of it occurring.
And I think this is the root of the disagreement between you two. @Zorba probably sees the calculus opposite, and would expect Russia to continue invasions to other countries, eventually NATO ones (which I happen to agree with). I don't see either outcome resulting in anything but a nuclear event, so I'm kinda between you two.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,398
136
Of course, but there's a very real possibility that every action and choice we make at this point leads to the same outcome, just via different routes. If Putin uses a WMD of any kind, and we respond, it will likely lead to a nuclear response. If he uses a WMD of any kind and we do not respond, it'll likely lead to a nuclear event, either from Putin himself, or from an eventual future invasion by Putin on a NATO country... which will demand a response, which will go nuclear.

So, what sequence of events do you see playing out that don't involve someone physically close to Putin just shooting him that will not lead to a nuclear event?
It's possible, but I don't think that's the most likely answer. I guess to come to that conclusion we would need to explain why no previous conflict came to a nuclear exchange, even when US and Russian forces directly engaged each other and why that's different now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,294
148
106
Are you nuts? What is the logical progression after chemical weapons, and do we want to be in a hot war with Russia when that happens?

I'm against any sort of US or NATO military involvement in this war, for any reason. Even if Russia nukes Ukrainian cities. Especially if they nuke Ukrainian cities.
#oppositeusername
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,667
136
Feels like Russia would have been a lot more successful if they just replaced all communications/electronic warfare with methed up kamikazee carrier pigeons.


Nothing to see here. Just the Russian military abandoning a crown jewel EW system in the middle of a clearing. Totally normal. Operation proceeding to the plan.

Edit: It's worse, they on purpose flipped it off the truck. It got dumped lmao and they threw a few branches over it.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
And I think this is the root of the disagreement between you two. @Zorba probably sees the calculus opposite, and would expect Russia to continue invasions to other countries, eventually NATO ones (which I happen to agree with). I don't see either outcome resulting in anything but a nuclear event, so I'm kinda between you two.

So either you or Zorba, or both, think that Putin will conclude that if he can use WMD in Ukraine without a military response from NATO, that he's clear to invade a NATO country? I don't think so. Because Putin knows we are obligated by treaty to intervene while we are not with Ukraine, which is why Putin manipulated Trump to undermine NATO. But even if the US broke it's treaty obligation (which I bet would happen if Trump was back in office), EU alone has enough military to crush Russia, and France has nukes.

This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. I mean, you could be right, but it's far from clear that you are. The scenario where we intervene with our military now is the one with the highest probability of a catastrophic outcome.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,003
12,067
146
It's possible, but I don't think that's the most likely answer. I guess to come to that conclusion we would need to explain why no previous conflict came to a nuclear exchange, even when US and Russian forces directly engaged each other and why that's different now.
I don't know, I'd need someone to explain to me why Putin is so committed to taking Ukraine. He's committing extremely large amounts of resources to the effort, far more than any other objective since WW2 at this point, and he's losing so much material that he's going to have to escalate just to hold on to Crimea and the Donbas regions at this point. It's different because the intent and effort from the despot with the numbers is different.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,003
12,067
146
So either you or Zorba, or both, think that Putin will conclude that if he can use WMD in Ukraine without a military response from NATO, that he's clear to invade a NATO country? I don't think so. Because Putin knows we are obligated by treaty to intervene while we are not with Ukraine, which is why Putin manipulated Trump to undermine NATO. But even if the US broke it's treaty obligation (which I bet would happen if Trump was back in office), EU alone has enough military to crush Russia, and France has nukes.

This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. I mean, you could be right, but it's far from clear that you are. The scenario where we intervene with our military now is the one with the highest probability of a catastrophic outcome.
You're assuming Putin is a rational actor, he is decidedly not.. We're talking about the man sending hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks, aircraft, and in some cases incredibly advanced equipment into a fucking wood chipper with zero plan B, because he thinks either the country is full of Nazis (crazy option 1), or he thinks he needs to rebuild the failed USSR (crazy option 2). An irrational actor will see his victory assured, and move on to the next USSR territory to de-nazify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RnR_au