Hacker News Reader

Comment by bingohbangoh | Hacker News Reader

does nobody think this will risk nuclear war? Is this really a place we want to risk it? I'm amazed at the comments section here

View on HN

Abandoning Ukraine risks emboldening Russia to continue their conquest of Eastern Europe - which, ultimately, increases the risk of nuclear war anyway, only with a stronger Russia with even more leverage. Being nuclear armed should not give a country license to seize any territory they wish.

You think letting Russia harass and invade their former vazal states is without risk? They've occupied eastern Europe until 1989. With the invasion of Crimea in 2014 they've basically only not harassed and not occupied eastern European countries for only 25 years. The only thing which provokes Russia is weakness.

So we all blow ourselves up and kill everybody? † To own Russia?

†: everybody == a lot of people, just to be clear

> To own Russia?

That's not the goal.

It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum.

It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945.

It's for people: The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.

> It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum.

This is a fair and logical point.

> It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945.

That very international order hinges on the US being the sole dominator of the entire world. Sooner or later that sort of international order has to crack.

> The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.

Pax Americana is paid for (in blood, natural resources, political sovereignty and the fate of every single future generation) by hundreds of millions of people, though outside of the "western, civilized" world. You still consider it some righteous cause? Sounds kind of selfish.

>> The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.

> Pax Americana is paid for (in blood, natural resources, political sovereignty and the fate of every single future generation) by hundreds of millions of people ...

I didn't say anything about righteousness, but about the human beings directly affected by Russia's invasion.

Typically this would require something to be gained from engaging in nuclear war. If you bring out the nukes then you are pretty much asking to be utterly destroyed. Sure you may get some of your enemies in the meantime, but you won't survive to see them dead. Using nukes in Ukraine is just a quick way to turn every other country in the world against you.

I think it is far more likely that Russia is waiting for a change of leadership in America that is friendly to their cause. In the meantime they are digging fortifications and stocking up for a future offensive to retake Kursk and expand their holdings in Ukraine when they lose access to American munitions.

I think it reduces the risk of a nuclear war. The thing to understand about Russia is that all their "red lines" are empty talk, and what they really respect is force. Ukraine appeared weak to Putin, and that's why he invaded. Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet, or having enough strength to make an invasion seem obviously bad idea.

IMO the best way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons. Then they would have nowhere to invade without risking their own destruction.

>Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet

Finland has been peacefully coexisting with USSR and Russia for almost 80 years after the WW2.

>would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons

Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example. Think of every country the US ever invaded or bombed having nukes and the means to deliver them to the US.

Finland is armed to the teeth and have one of the best militaries on the planet.

>> would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons

> Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example.

Or arming Mexican cartels. The Chinese mafia (wink wink) is already doing money laundering for them in US/EU.

>arming Mexican cartels

It would hurt Mexicans and just plain evil.

The CIA and the Department of State did worse already all around the globe. US can't claim the moral high ground on this. So yeah, maybe think about the consequences of escalation.

I'm Russian.

I wasn't aiming the "maybe think about it" at you.

Thanks, but still, I don't want my country to be doing this unequivocally evil thing.

Can’t really see nuclear war.

I think that Russia (Putin) thought that ukraine would collapse within days and it would be a walkover.

But it wasn’t and Zelensky bound his people together to resist the Russian army. The Russian army showed its capabilities and more surprisingly it’s huge limitations.

The oligarchy in Russia may well determine that getting rid of Putin might be less risky than letting him escalate the situation, especially if he starts talking about using even battlefield nukes.

Do you view this as significantly different than the f-16s or himars being allowed?

'National security' as a political question has at some point been taken over by emotional lunatics. I don't know what to say really.

The US's national security interests in supporting Ukraine are pretty blindingly obvious. Turning isolationist and emboldening Russia helps no-one but Russia.

With fairness to these "emotional lunatics", their assumption that Russia would be too afraid to attack NATO territories has thus far been proven right.

As long as we are able to quibble about on the internets, ye, we haven't come to lobbing those around yet. Correct. Always a correct argument if it makes ot to the servers. At this point it hasn't happened...

Unfortunately for Russia, the "Final Warning" strategy has since been translated into English and is therefore ineffective against modern NATO regiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning

America doesn't negotiate with terrorism, only strategic arms reduction. Russia cannot desire for nuclear war because it cannot be used as a bartering tool; ICBMs are merely an expensive pen for signing their own death warrant.

Sounds very emotional.

I see the irony, yes.

That's exactly it. Up until now, it was widely believed that this would risk nuclear war, which is why it wasn't allowed.

But now the US is about to have a President who is far, far more favorable to Putin. Would Putin blow up the US just before it's going to cease support for Ukraine entirely?

This is a calculated risk. Everything about this war has been a calculated risk (and indeed, any war). There is a strong argument to be made that nuclear war was never really going to happen, and that we should have allowed Ukraine to attack Russia more directly all along. The present administration rejected that, but now that calculation has changed.

Is it correct? Who the heck knows.

Giving US nukes to every Eastern European country (including Ukraine) would be biggest contribution to humanity safety in history.

Why would Russia bother with nuclear war when they just have to wait a couple of months until Putin's biggest fanboy is in power?

> does nobody think this will risk nuclear war?

Only russian bots and people with mental development problems.

Better to be dead then to be a slave in russia- which almost always means you will become a slave dragged against your will to the trenches to die in another enslavement campaign. So the choice boils down russia or not russia - and beeing dead either way.

this is an insane reply and proves why NATO never put nuclear weapons in russia-adjacent states like the Baltics

Nuclear war is not something to be lightly risked

Bring it. Right here.

And here I am thinking only reddit has unhinged posts...

The same people who were very wrong about the election seem to believe everything the same media says about Russia. Very strong correlation, very questionable propaganda

I don’t know what media you consumed, but the media I read indicated the race could go either way, and that a 300+ EV tally for either candidate was possible. It’s literally impossible to have been “wrong”.

Bit of “media literacy” for you: The media you read does not exist to inform you. Trump’s lead would have had to have been overwhelming for published polls to indicate that he would win.

The media here in the UK told us that intel was saying Russia had gathered troops and equipment near the border of Ukraine, preparing for an invasion. Putin said they were lying.

Then Putin invaded Ukraine, but called it a special military operation.

Now our news tries to keep us updated about which territory is controlled by Russia or Ukraine, what the rough estimated casualties are, and so on.

Which part do you think they're misinforming us about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com