Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mountain_Skies | Hacker News Reader

Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to simply capitulate. There are lots of reasons not to do that but if your goal above all others is to lessen the potential for a nuclear exchange, it is the way to go. There are of course other consequences to capitulation but immediate nuclear war isn't one of them.

View on HN

> Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to simply capitulate.

Yes! Has the world gone crazy? Everyone is talking about the sacrifices they're willing to make to avert the risks potentially connected with climate change in many decades- and yet it seems that many accept the idea that in order to defend some principles it's fine to risk nuclear armageddon in the next month.

So your answer is let every nation that has a nuclear weapon do as it pleases? Can't wait for NK to demand SK or Israel demand Palestine or Iran demand for everyone to be Muslin.

Capitulation rewards nuclear blackmail and invites emulation, causing future episodes of brinkmanship. It is far from clear this path is more likely to avoid "armageddon."

You can dismiss freedom from mass rape, arbitrary execution, tyranny and the rights to dignity and self-determination as "some principles"– but without these principles there is no world that is worth saving.

Have you not heard what the criminals employed in Putin’s military will do to you? What you advise is, at the bottom line, “don’t fight back, just give up and be violently raped.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com