Hacker News Reader

Comment by UnFleshedOne | Hacker News Reader

Another option for #4 is supplying enough long range anti-ship rockets to sink whole russian fleet in black sea. They can't bring in more ships, because turkey is blocking the entrance.

View on HN

Triggering world war 3 would also help reduce the population which could reduce co2 emissions and food requirements. Killing a few birds with one stone.

I really wish the last few years didn't make me desensitized to the notion.

This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on.

If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down.

Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".

"Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time"."

That is what they have been threatening...

They threaten everyone and change their mind all the time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.

The question was would they really "say" it.

It felt pretty clear to me the intention was saying it "to themselves" and following up with actual action. Nobody cares if they say things aloud.

in that case, it would be russia starting ww3, and I don't think they will.

I agree, but they will spin it from their prospective to say Han, I mean we, shot first.

But there is no spin. There's either global thermonuclear war or there's nothing. If NATO isn't invading Russia, and Russia isn't invading NATO, then nothing has changed.

Does Russia want to start global thermonuclear war because they can argue a technicality that it's not their fault? No, I don't think so. They could start the war and the outcome would be the same at any time they want.

Excusing the edge case of a pathetic attempt of a land invasion of Finland or Poland or something crazy.

> Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".

Because Vladimir Putin is currently very very defective.

More like incompetent

I suspect he's about as far down the vascular dementia pathway as Trump is, despite being five years younger.

He's also very very scared to do anything of consequence. Look, the Ukrainian invasion was the only reckless thing he's ever done and look how it turned out.

Russia might respond with conventional cruise missile strikes against US forces in the region.

Shrug. We're shipping $40B of shit to ukraine. It really doesn't matter.

Unlikely. That would give all of NATO casus belli.

I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world.

And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to this statement will consist of, it will not change my stance, so do not bother.

I’ll drink to that!

>"I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world."

Well many people went to Ukraine to fight on their side. If that is what you do why would anyone bother "changing your stance". Just go and do it.

But if you expect other people to perish in WWIII for the sake your stance they might hold a different opinion about that part.

those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia

if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them

>"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia"

If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014.

>"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them"

Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.

> If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014.

Nobody believed it was happening, i.e. Ukrainians never expected having to fight Russians. Now it's completely different; Ukraine has been preparing for an escalation of the war for 8 years.

>"as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia"

That was the statement. I replied to. By taking Crimea Putin had taken a great deal more than "an inch"

>"Nobody believed it was happening,"

Nobody believed the Crimea was taken?

> Nobody believed the Crimea was taken?

Nobody in Crimea believed it was being taken, until it was. By that time, the Ukranian government was beheaded, whatever left of the army was demoralized. There was literally a few thousand dollars in the state's coffers. Insurgency in the east was ramping up; a few volunteer battalions were formed overnight, financed by neighborhood donations, and sent off to fight the (covert) invasion in the east. It's actually a miracle Ukraine survived in 2014, so fighting the Russian regular army (with a big Naval base) in Crimea was not on top of the list.

It's been 8 years since and no fight for Crimea. This still contradicts the original statement: "as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia".

And I am far from blaming Ukrainians. Their government luckily had enough brain cells and had voted not to attack what Russia considers their territory and not to vaporize their nation for the sake of some hot heads's stance.

Had they decided to do so on their own before Russia's invasion then there would be no support from the West. The chance of them succeeding militarily in Crimea in that case I think would have been big fat zero.

So no, in general I do not think want people to get vaporized en masse just because somebody believes they should.

Also we might just have a case of keyboard warriors here. It is easy to be brave / stupid sitting in a safe place in front of computer screen.

>It's been 8 years since and no fight for Crimea. This still contradicts the original statement: "as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia".

only if you believe that viewpoints and opinions and attitudes of humans never change, a ridiculous notion

>It is easy to be brave / stupid sitting in a safe place in front of computer screen.

if you don't like that that's their attitude, feel free to complain to them about it, don't attack me, the messenger, telling you how it is. after all, it is easy for you to doubt their resolve in a safe place in front of a computer screen

That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK).

Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).

We are talking about a country that can’t even supply proper boots to its troops. Why believe that the nuclear weapons they inherited from USSR still work?

And then you have Russian aviation attacking and sinking Ukrainian merchant ships, plus a couple of submarines.

Ukraine doesn't have much of a merchant fleet. Most of their exports travel on foreign bottoms. And foreign ship owners are unwilling to risk entering an active conflict zone, especially because they can't obtain affordable insurance.

for a short while, while said aviation exists

we can play this game all day long, but the past 2 months have clearly shown that russian conventional forces are not even close to a match for NATO combined forces*

* as long as the goal isn't to slaughter as many civilians as possible, which for russia is a strong assumption

Reply on news.ycombinator.com