I saw some people in the Ukraine megathread advocating for Russia to not launch the nukes in return if America were to nuke them, and it’s scaring me the fuck out rn.

If whole premise of MAD is that a nuclear first strike, while killing your enemies, would be suicide. The whole premise is that of a Mexican standoff where if one party shoots, the other shoots also.

The suicidal nature of a nuclear first strike is the only thing keeping the world from nuclear devastation rn.

Please don’t fucking advocate for victims of an American nuclear first strike to not retaliate.

(BTW, America is the only power who hasn’t relinquished their right to a first strike anyways)

1 point
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
2 points

What the fuck does r-slurred mean? Is it technical jargon or something?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

The whole premise is that of a Mexican standoff where if one party shoots, the other shoots also.

All I hear is that I can get all of the treasure if I’m the fastest nuke-slinger in the west. I’ll have an awesome soundtrack moment and ride off into the artificial sunset on a horse laden with confederate gold.

permalink
report
reply

yeah but China’s and Russia have got the quickest draw not america as they have hypersonic missiles.

we aint cut out to be no Jesse James

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

:posadas:

permalink
report
reply

If the Nukes just start falling in all the parts of the world everyone dies. Asking for any country to make sure that doesn’t happen really isn’t that controversial.

permalink
report
reply
29 points
*

The only way the concept of a “red line” works is if you actually do pull the trigger when it is crossed

If you don’t, your opponent now knows you were always bluffing. The equation actually becomes much much less stable because it’s now completely unpredictable what actions would provoke a decisive response.

This is why my personal nightmare scenario for this war is if Russia utilizes a tactical nuclear weapon against an exclusively military target in Ukraine. Such an action would beg a response by the West in some way, but since the use of such a weapon wouldn’t be targeted against NATO forces, it’s completely unpredictable how the West would actually respond. But if it doesn’t respond, it gives Russia a free hand to use more tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and even worse would open Pandora’s Box regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons by any nation.

permalink
report
reply

Hmm. It sounds like one solution to this scenario would be for Ukraine and any other state fearful of such a tactical strike to form some sort of defensive alliance. Of particular value would be one which includes powers capable of delivering a commensurate retaliatory strike. If only such a treaty organization were already present in the region 😟

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

that’s exactly how we got here though

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@hexbear.net

Create post

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.

Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.

!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we’re all comrades here.

Community stats

  • 107

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 127K

    Comments