Hacker News Reader

Comment by StanislavPetrov | Hacker News Reader

>8 The world will continue to spin on and the sky is not falling. The sun will rise again tomorrow.

At least until mushroom clouds dot the horizons and the nuclear winter starts. Then the sun won't rise for a few years.

I agree completely that "news" (especially corporate/government "news) is propaganda, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to keep your head in the sand and pretend everything is going to be okay. There is a very good argument to be made that we are far closer to civilization-ending nuclear war right now than we have been at any time in history.

View on HN

> There is a very good argument to be made that we are far closer to civilization-ending nuclear war right now than we have been at any time in history.

I wouldn't say there's a very good argument that we're closer to that than we were in, like, October 1962.

I'd say the crucial difference is that back then, such crises were created and resolved behind closed doors and the masses were helpless onlookers, while crises today are created in public, and the masses are active participants. This makes the eventual outcome much more unpredictable.

> active participants

Really?

Yes.

I think he means they whinge about it on twitter. It's hard to see any other meaning given that you or I have basically 0 influence on the negotiations that go on between heads of state.

>I wouldn't say there's a very good argument that we're closer to that than we were in, like, October 1962.

NATO is in a direct proxy war with Russia, who has repeatedly said that they consider this war an "existential threat". The 1962 crisis was resolved when the Soviet Union eventually stood down and agreed not to stage their troops and missiles in Cuba. NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not we are actually closer to the precipice than we were in 1962, but nobody who understands the situation thinks a serious argument can't be made. We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.

We have troops and missiles in Ukraine? I mean under our direct control. Providing weapons for Ukraine to use isn’t exactly the same as the USSR putting nukes in Cuba.

There is no way to know for sure if any of the troops or missiles in Ukraine are currently under our direct control. What we do know for sure is that if Ukraine joins NATO, they will have troops and missiles there under NATO control. That has always been the core of the issue. Unfortunately, as long as NATO refuses to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia, just like the Soviet Union refused to recognize the legitimate security concerns of the USA in 1962 (before they stood down), we will be on the edge of nuclear annihilation. Even more unfortunate is that many people are so emotionally involved in this conflict due to blanket propaganda that they are unable to make rational decisions. Nobody in 'The West' is going to be arguing over who should have had sovereignty over Eastern Ukraine after the nuclear holocaust.

I think the “legitimate security concerns of Russia” angle is hard to play when they’ve literally invaded their neighbor.

Unfortunately, as long as NATO refuses to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia,

First let's have Russia pull its troops out of Ukraine, re-affirm the binding agreements it has already signed to permanently respect its sovereignty (and amend these for additional guarantees as needed), and commit to a timetable for reparations -- with a substantial downpayment. At that point, we can have a discussion about such matters.

Until that happens - Russia has no "legitimate" security needs whatsoever.

Not that this means NATO should start putting missiles in Ukraine willy-nilly. But really, until the above happens -- one needs to just drop the word "legitimate" from one's vocabulary, as it applies to current regime's wants or needs for anything.

Does Ukraine really offer that much to range advantage to NATO that the Baltics already didn't?

I'd also like to see a source for " NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine." The closest I can recalls is pretty clearly, "Ukraine has the right to decide on its own foreign policy" which is somewhat different.

We've been close to nuclear war since the moment the failed Russian state decided military aggression was a substitute for reform. Abandoning support for Ukraine doesn't actually do anything to address the nuclear threat Russia poses - it simply moves the nuclear threat to some other axis of conflict. The danger of nuclear first-use by Putin or some other Russian regime will only end when Russia's internal conflicts are resolved, by reform or collapse.

A “direct proxy war” seems like a contradiction in terms.

> NATO is in a direct proxy war with Russia, who has repeatedly said that they consider this war an "existential threat".

Ah so Russia can take whatever it wants and do whatever it wants as long as it considers it an 'existential threat', and it seemingly has this right because it has nuclear weapons?.

> We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.

There is literally zero indication that this true, we haven't seen any reports anywhere of a change in nuclear posture indicating that even a nuclear test was going to happen let alone having a weapon launched.

> At least until mushroom clouds dot the horizons and the nuclear winter starts. Then the sun won't rise for a few years.

That's more fearmongering though. Nuclear winter doesn't mean blotting out the sun, it would be mostly imperceptible fine particles that might reduce global temperatures by a degree. But it's also pretty speculative and past predictions have over estimated the effect. So it's not a great way to disagree with this point. Global nuclear war would obviously be devastating but nuclear winter would be the least of our worries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com