Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you think we're serious about nuclear war.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:30:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just a random question, do you think the both side of the cold war is serious about unleashing nuclear annihilation of the entire nation if given a chance?

I knew that during the later stage of the war, the west did have the capability to wipe out the USSR in a one complete first strike with the deployment of Pershing II in Europe which could wipe out Moscow and their entire missile command in less than 7 minutes. In the end we didn't use it, probably because there is still some degree of uncertainty that could result in nuclear retaliation (like some sort of Dooms Day Device or the operators just randomly fire retaliation shot independently).

But seriously? I am wondering, if a perfect chance is given, would we seriously wipe out the entire nation just because they are a potential threat to us? May be we will, after all if they decided to fire a shot first it will be a mutual destruction on both side of the iron curtain. But it would probably take an incredibly heartless and determined leader to carry it through.

The same thing could have been so for the Soviet. However, realistically Soviet never developed a technology that could achieve the same result as the Pershing in Europe so they might not really have a choice to begin with. By that time Soviet had already belief that the only way that they can survive nuclear annihilation is to strike first and at least archive a mutual destruction. Lucky for us, history proved that they didn't have the gut to do it.

What do you guy think anyway? Will we do it? or not do it (and carry a risk of Armageddon for the sake of humanity)?

As I said before, just random asking.
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:21:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:30:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Just a random question, do you think the both side of the cold war is serious about unleashing nuclear annihilation of the entire nation if given a chance?

I knew that during the later stage of the war, the west did have the capability to wipe out the USSR in a one complete first strike with the deployment of Pershing II in Europe which could wipe out Moscow and their entire missile command in less than 7 minutes. In the end we didn't use it, probably because there is still some degree of uncertainty that could result in nuclear retaliation (like some sort of Dooms Day Device or the operators just randomly fire retaliation shot independently).

But seriously? I am wondering, if a perfect chance is given, would we seriously wipe out the entire nation just because they are a potential threat to us? May be we will, after all if they decided to fire a shot first it will be a mutual destruction on both side of the iron curtain. But it would probably take an incredibly heartless and determined leader to carry it through.

The same thing could have been so for the Soviet. However, realistically Soviet never developed a technology that could achieve the same result as the Pershing in Europe so they might not really have a choice to begin with. By that time Soviet had already belief that the only way that they can survive nuclear annihilation is to strike first and at least archive a mutual destruction. Lucky for us, history proved that they didn't have the gut to do it.

What do you guy think anyway? Will we do it? or not do it (and carry a risk of Armageddon for the sake of humanity)?

As I said before, just random asking.

Will we do it? NO. We won't hit them with nuc's, because then they'd hit us with nuc's. It's called M.A.D. [1]

No one wins.

[1]Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender[1], becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only total destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons. [https://www.princeton.edu...]
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:52:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 7:21:56 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:30:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Just a random question, do you think the both side of the cold war is serious about unleashing nuclear annihilation of the entire nation if given a chance?

I knew that during the later stage of the war, the west did have the capability to wipe out the USSR in a one complete first strike with the deployment of Pershing II in Europe which could wipe out Moscow and their entire missile command in less than 7 minutes. In the end we didn't use it, probably because there is still some degree of uncertainty that could result in nuclear retaliation (like some sort of Dooms Day Device or the operators just randomly fire retaliation shot independently).

But seriously? I am wondering, if a perfect chance is given, would we seriously wipe out the entire nation just because they are a potential threat to us? May be we will, after all if they decided to fire a shot first it will be a mutual destruction on both side of the iron curtain. But it would probably take an incredibly heartless and determined leader to carry it through.

The same thing could have been so for the Soviet. However, realistically Soviet never developed a technology that could achieve the same result as the Pershing in Europe so they might not really have a choice to begin with. By that time Soviet had already belief that the only way that they can survive nuclear annihilation is to strike first and at least archive a mutual destruction. Lucky for us, history proved that they didn't have the gut to do it.

What do you guy think anyway? Will we do it? or not do it (and carry a risk of Armageddon for the sake of humanity)?

As I said before, just random asking.

Will we do it? NO. We won't hit them with nuc's, because then they'd hit us with nuc's. It's called M.A.D. [1]

No one wins.

[1]Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender[1], becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only total destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons. [https://www.princeton.edu...]

I am well aware of that but you missed the point of my question. I ask in a hypothetical sense that, let's assume that by some means we've managed to archive technological edge in nuclear arms race which allow us to perform First Strike that would cripple the entire nuclear assets of the USSR before they can retaliate (and we ACTUALLY did it, wit the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe although it's not perfect), would we use them or just keep them as a deterrent forces?

First strike is one of the core principle of MAD, no countries are to allow anyone to archive first strike capability if they were to maintain MAD because with first strike, MAD can no longer be reassure. Taken Able Archer for example, why do the Soviet is so allow in just one NATO training exercise? Because they believe that by the time the west already archive a nuclear first strike capability and unless they strike first, chances are that the the would be the only one in ruined (and we're damn lucky that in the end they didn't have the gut to try it).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:27:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 12:52:06 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:21:56 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 4/2/2014 9:30:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Just a random question, do you think the both side of the cold war is serious about unleashing nuclear annihilation of the entire nation if given a chance?

I knew that during the later stage of the war, the west did have the capability to wipe out the USSR in a one complete first strike with the deployment of Pershing II in Europe which could wipe out Moscow and their entire missile command in less than 7 minutes. In the end we didn't use it, probably because there is still some degree of uncertainty that could result in nuclear retaliation (like some sort of Dooms Day Device or the operators just randomly fire retaliation shot independently).

But seriously? I am wondering, if a perfect chance is given, would we seriously wipe out the entire nation just because they are a potential threat to us? May be we will, after all if they decided to fire a shot first it will be a mutual destruction on both side of the iron curtain. But it would probably take an incredibly heartless and determined leader to carry it through.

The same thing could have been so for the Soviet. However, realistically Soviet never developed a technology that could achieve the same result as the Pershing in Europe so they might not really have a choice to begin with. By that time Soviet had already belief that the only way that they can survive nuclear annihilation is to strike first and at least archive a mutual destruction. Lucky for us, history proved that they didn't have the gut to do it.

What do you guy think anyway? Will we do it? or not do it (and carry a risk of Armageddon for the sake of humanity)?

As I said before, just random asking.

Will we do it? NO. We won't hit them with nuc's, because then they'd hit us with nuc's. It's called M.A.D. [1]

No one wins.

[1]Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender[1], becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only total destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons. [https://www.princeton.edu...]

I am well aware of that but you missed the point of my question. I ask in a hypothetical sense that, let's assume that by some means we've managed to archive technological edge in nuclear arms race which allow us to perform First Strike that would cripple the entire nuclear assets of the USSR before they can retaliate (and we ACTUALLY did it, wit the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe although it's not perfect), would we use them or just keep them as a deterrent forces?

Originally I had a long response...but I think the main point is that it HAS to be perfect. Anything short of total and utter perfection could and probably would lead to a second strike.

First strike is one of the core principle of MAD, no countries are to allow anyone to archive first strike capability if they were to maintain MAD because with first strike, MAD can no longer be reassure. Taken Able Archer for example, why do the Soviet is so allow in just one NATO training exercise? Because they believe that by the time the west already archive a nuclear first strike capability and unless they strike first, chances are that the the would be the only one in ruined (and we're damn lucky that in the end they didn't have the gut to try it).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:57:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Originally I had a long response...but I think the main point is that it HAS to be perfect. Anything short of total and utter perfection could and probably would lead to a second strike.

And thanks to our human imperfection, million of lives were saved, perhaps this will be the only time that we will to have appreciate our foolishness :D

I am begun to think that perhaps the decision that the cold war people need to make was probably well above the point of morality. It became a matter of survival.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:51:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

Yes, but if Ukraine were NATO-aligned, then any attack on a NATO nation would bring those nukes into play, regardless of Ukraine's misgivings. When you look at how upset Putin was over proposed defense systems in eastern Europe, you can imagine how much a complete dissolution of nuclear parity would ruffle his feathers. It's analogous to the situation in Cuba during the Cold War, except the nukes would already be there.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:56:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:51:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

Yes, but if Ukraine were NATO-aligned, then any attack on a NATO nation would bring those nukes into play, regardless of Ukraine's misgivings.

So are you saying his strategy would be to disarm Ukraine/annex Crimea while they were still non-disastrous options?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 11:19:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I would point out the primacy of realism over ideology here. Regardless of the accuracy of your statement (that Russia would have had even more reason to do so), the fact is, Russia wouldn't dare to invade the Ukraine if Ukraine possessed a nuclear deterrent.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It's never an empty threat. This is why a condition for Western support for the Ukraine was de-nuclearization.

One nuke could annihilate Paris, Moscow, or London. The Ukraine had several hundred...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 11:20:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:57:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Originally I had a long response...but I think the main point is that it HAS to be perfect. Anything short of total and utter perfection could and probably would lead to a second strike.

And thanks to our human imperfection, million of lives were saved, perhaps this will be the only time that we will to have appreciate our foolishness :D

This is a ridiculously profound statement, lol.

I am begun to think that perhaps the decision that the cold war people need to make was probably well above the point of morality. It became a matter of survival.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 1:03:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 11:19:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I would point out the primacy of realism over ideology here. Regardless of the accuracy of your statement (that Russia would have had even more reason to do so), the fact is, Russia wouldn't dare to invade the Ukraine if Ukraine possessed a nuclear deterrent.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It's never an empty threat. This is why a condition for Western support for the Ukraine was de-nuclearization.

One nuke could annihilate Paris, Moscow, or London. The Ukraine had several hundred...

From anything resembling a rational perspective, initiating a nuclear exchange that could have been avoided is always a worse option than not doing so. But obviously, not everyone is rational, which is why when given the opportunity to demand that a not-definitely-sane country give up its nuclear weapons, it really makes no sense not to take it to the limit. Unlike NATO, Russia would have much to gain from disarming Ukraine/annexing Crimea, which means it could justify a greater risk.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 1:03:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:19:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I would point out the primacy of realism over ideology here. Regardless of the accuracy of your statement (that Russia would have had even more reason to do so), the fact is, Russia wouldn't dare to invade the Ukraine if Ukraine possessed a nuclear deterrent.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It's never an empty threat. This is why a condition for Western support for the Ukraine was de-nuclearization.

One nuke could annihilate Paris, Moscow, or London. The Ukraine had several hundred...

From anything resembling a rational perspective, initiating a nuclear exchange that could have been avoided is always a worse option than not doing so.

This explains why the Ukraine was "de-nuked", and which is why any discussion of "what ifs" involving a nuclear Ukraine are non-starters.

But obviously, not everyone is rational, which is why when given the opportunity to demand that a not-definitely-sane country give up its nuclear weapons, it really makes no sense not to take it to the limit. Unlike NATO, Russia would have much to gain from disarming Ukraine/annexing Crimea, which means it could justify a greater risk.

NATO had just as much to gain from a non-nuclear Ukraine as Russia. With nukes, the Ukraine could strong-arm NATO...hell anyone with nukes could strong-arm anyone. It does make you wonder why they gave them up in the first place...what exactly was the calculus involved in doing so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 6:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 11:19:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I would point out the primacy of realism over ideology here. Regardless of the accuracy of your statement (that Russia would have had even more reason to do so), the fact is, Russia wouldn't dare to invade the Ukraine if Ukraine possessed a nuclear deterrent.

Is that why nobody ever attempts to invade Israel?

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It's never an empty threat. This is why a condition for Western support for the Ukraine was de-nuclearization.

One nuke could annihilate Paris, Moscow, or London. The Ukraine had several hundred...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 12:27:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 6:19:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:19:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I would point out the primacy of realism over ideology here. Regardless of the accuracy of your statement (that Russia would have had even more reason to do so), the fact is, Russia wouldn't dare to invade the Ukraine if Ukraine possessed a nuclear deterrent.

Is that why nobody ever attempts to invade Israel?

lol, I'd go further and speculate that nukes are why even America has trouble in convincing Israel to follow its game plan.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It's never an empty threat. This is why a condition for Western support for the Ukraine was de-nuclearization.

One nuke could annihilate Paris, Moscow, or London. The Ukraine had several hundred...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:44:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.

Yes, which is why I said "Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland" doesn't pose much of a threat to Russia.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 9:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 8:44:22 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.

Yes, which is why I said "Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland" doesn't pose much of a threat to Russia.

Nuclear annihilation poses a threat orders of magnitude above any other conceivable threat.

According to your logic, if we both pointed guns at each others' heads, neither of us would be threatened. That's...not reasonable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:29:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 9:37:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 8:44:22 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.

Yes, which is why I said "Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland" doesn't pose much of a threat to Russia.

Nuclear annihilation poses a threat orders of magnitude above any other conceivable threat.

According to your logic, if we both pointed guns at each others' heads, neither of us would be threatened. That's...not reasonable.

If we both wanted to live, and each knew that the other would have enough time to shoot us back, then yes.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 11:01:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:29:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 9:37:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 8:44:22 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.

Yes, which is why I said "Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland" doesn't pose much of a threat to Russia.

Nuclear annihilation poses a threat orders of magnitude above any other conceivable threat.

According to your logic, if we both pointed guns at each others' heads, neither of us would be threatened. That's...not reasonable.

If we both wanted to live, and each knew that the other would have enough time to shoot us back, then yes.

Do you understand the difference between a threat and carrying out a threat?

What you're saying is that the actualization of nuclear war is slim...but the threat is ever present. Again, the underlined statement is simply false.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:01:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 10:29:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 9:37:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 8:44:22 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:26:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 10:15:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:58:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:14:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:03:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/6/2014 12:40:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 11:42:32 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 9:47:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/6/2014 8:52:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:51:41 AM, TN05 wrote:
If Ukraine still had nukes Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

It would have given them more of a reason to do so, as that would mean that Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland. I think their response would have been more quick, more severe, and more brutal. They probably would have stepped in and crushed the insurrection before it gained much steam, using the nukes as justification.

I'd also add that both Russia and Ukraine know the threat of nuclear weapons is somewhat of an empty one, because their use would mean complete annihilation for Ukraine.

It would also mean obliteration of a good chunk of Russia. Yes, they wouldn't be completely obliterated but if you take out their major populated areas like Moscow or St. Petersburg, there isn't much left.

Your point?

Do you know the calculus involved in nuclear warfare? He's talking about a second-strike capability. It's the poison pill of politics. You don't fvck with that.

No he's not. He's stating the obvious fact that a nuclear war would destroy both countries, which wasn't relevant to my post.

Do you know what a second strike capability is?

Yes, it's the ability to respond after being attacked. How is this relevant?

Because no country would seek to annihilate another if it would result in its own annihilation. So, the underlined statement is simply false.

Yes, which is why I said "Ukraine's swinging to the West diplomatically would place an arsenal of nukes in a hostile country right next to their heartland" doesn't pose much of a threat to Russia.

Nuclear annihilation poses a threat orders of magnitude above any other conceivable threat.

According to your logic, if we both pointed guns at each others' heads, neither of us would be threatened. That's...not reasonable.

If we both wanted to live, and each knew that the other would have enough time to shoot us back, then yes.

Do you understand the difference between a threat and carrying out a threat?

What you're saying is that the actualization of nuclear war is slim...but the threat is ever present. Again, the underlined statement is simply false.

It's only the threat to engage in a nuclear if the other side does so, who in turn, would only engage in a nuclear war if the other side does so. In the way I used the word "threat", it was obvious that I was referring to the actual use of nuclear weapons i.e. the threat that Ukraine would actually use its nuclear weapons against Russia if Russia were to acquire Crimea, etc.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 6:15:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:16:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:01:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It's only the threat to engage in a nuclear if the other side does so, who in turn, would only engage in a nuclear war if the other side does so. In the way I used the word "threat", it was obvious that I was referring to the actual use of nuclear weapons i.e. the threat that Ukraine would actually use its nuclear weapons against Russia if Russia were to acquire Crimea, etc.

When you say they WOULD use them, that doesn't mean they actually use them.

If they WOULD use them, that's threatening.

If they ACTUALLY use them, that's carrying out the threat, which is an entirely different matter.

Therefore, had there been nukes in the Ukraine, it would NOT have been an empty threat. It would have been EXTREMELY threatening to BOTH NATO and Russia. Would they have CARRIED OUT this threat? Probably not.

That's all I'm pointing out here...I think this is just a semantics issue and we actually agree. Just that when you say "empty threat" you imply that someone is bluffing...so, say, if North Korea said that they had nuclear subs along California and New York...that's an "empty threat" because the possibility of that being true is extremely slim.

But, the North Korean artillery corps aimed at Seoul? That's not an empty threat, they will indeed level the city the moment war is declared on the peninsula. Will they carry out the threat? Well, it's been over 60 years now and they haven't yet.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:40:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 6:15:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:16:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:01:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It's only the threat to engage in a nuclear if the other side does so, who in turn, would only engage in a nuclear war if the other side does so. In the way I used the word "threat", it was obvious that I was referring to the actual use of nuclear weapons i.e. the threat that Ukraine would actually use its nuclear weapons against Russia if Russia were to acquire Crimea, etc.

When you say they WOULD use them, that doesn't mean they actually use them.

If they WOULD use them, that's threatening.

If they ACTUALLY use them, that's carrying out the threat, which is an entirely different matter.

Therefore, had there been nukes in the Ukraine, it would NOT have been an empty threat. It would have been EXTREMELY threatening to BOTH NATO and Russia. Would they have CARRIED OUT this threat? Probably not.


"Threatening" is somewhat of a lose term, and the way you're using it does not correspond to the way I used it. We're not even in disagreement. In fact, your point is implicit in mine. All I'm trying to state is the obvious fact that both Russia and Ukraine know that Ukraine would never use its nuclear weapons against Russia for the actions it has taken thus far.