• Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Good job repeating russian propaganda.

    Edit: Not that I care about internet points.
    But the thought that opposing russia would lead to nuclear war is exactly what Putin wants people in the west to think to keep bullying and suppressing everyone around him.

    He is bluffing though and he knows it.

    He said delivering supplies to Ukraine was the red line.
    He didn’t react when we did.

    He said delivering arms to Ukraine was the red line.
    He didn’t react when we did.

    He said delivering tanks to Ukraine was the red line.
    He didn’t react when we did.

    He said delivering planes to Ukraine was the red line.
    He didn’t react when we did.

    Because he can’t. He knows he would lose everything.

      • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Like I don’t know that, like anyone doesn’t know that.

        Still noone, not the winning side, and especially not the losing side has any real incentive to launch them first.
        It’s basic game theory, you never choose the option that has you lose absolutely everything, even if the alternative has you lose something big (like a war, or even your life).

        Even crazed dictators like Putin know this.
        And not even Putin can launch a nuke on his own. Even he needs generals and engineers that all know that not only they themselves will die if they obey, also their families will die, everyone they know will die if they obey.

        We will never see full scale nuclear war, because noone at all could ever want that.

        But Putin benefits from rubes just letting him bully everyone around him because, boo hoo he is so crazy and scary and after so many crossed red lines the next one surely is the one that makes him suicide himself, his wife, his daughter, his country, his place in history and anyone or anything he ever valued or cared about.

        • DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Right and neither side has an incentive to push the other side to launch them so before a deciding victory a stailmate will occur and after a year or two the fighting will beginning again with no real problems solved and thousands of innocent young men paying for it

          • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s just wrong for the simple reason that NATO is vastly superior in any form of conventional warfare.

            NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2.
            It would be a one sided beating.

            And russia would lose and lose fast.

            But russia would still have no incentive to be the first to launch nukes, because that would change the situation from bad to total annihilation.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2. It would be a one sided beating.

              Like NATO in Afghanistan.

              • Tinidril@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.

            • DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              All I’ve heard till now is your opinion that Russia wouldn’t launch nukes, your statements have as much weight as a fart in the wind an Russia has threatened to use nukes so idk man

      • Hubi@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Russia won’t dare to use nukes as long as the fighting happens within Ukrainian borders. Putin and the oligarchs aren’t willing to lose their kleptocracy over a piece of land they only tried to get because they felt it was a safe move. An actual NATO intervention would be a way out of the conflict for them without losing face.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        You see, this is the entirely wrong and often cited cliché that people think of when talking about war between Russia and NATO, but in reality, no such war between superpowers would be fought with nuclear weapons because there is no incentive for it, conventional warfare is much more desirable, even for the losing party. That’s why I think that we shouldn’t be afraid of openly opposing and fighting the People’s Republic in the Taiwan Strait in the defense of the actual China. And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere. A war between superpowers would not nearly be as disastrous as the Russians and Chinese want you to think.

        • IvanOverdrive
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere.

          Hol’ up. We’ve got systems. None that actually work. Hitting an ICBM is like hitting a needle in a haystack with a needle in a haystack. I’m sure we’ve made progress since the 80s Star Wars programs. But even if a fraction of the nukes detonate where they are supposed to, that’s the end of civilization.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          We have systems for intercepting ballistic missiles, but they aren’t nearly effective enough.

          I tend to agree that a nuclear exchange is unlikely but, the consequences of being wrong are pretty severe.

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      russia has a massive population and a wartime economy. in some ways it’s bigger than all the european nato countries combined. the idea that they would just fall over is absolutely western propaganda.

      putin can suck my balls but he’s not an idiot.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Russia can’t even take on a former client state, their military is a joke compared to any single NATO member. They’re not a near peer for the US, maybe a near peer for some of the lesser NATO members. Russia would lose any conventional war against NATO without question. They barely have the personnel to fight Ukraine, they’re not going to be able to go after NATO. Hell, how much of their black sea fleet is left above water? And that’s against a country that doesn’t even have a goddamn Navy.

        The only way they would bring out nukes is if we invaded Russia proper. Which I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to do.

        • KevonLooney
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          NATO vs Russia would be like the Iraq War on steroids. All of their planes would be grounded and their troops in Ukraine would surrender in huge numbers. Drones would not help Russia because NATO troops would move too quickly.

          Look at what happened in the first Gulf War. Saddam’s elite Republican Guard troops were destroyed by air and artillery fire, then mopped up in the largest tank battles since WW2.

          Saddam had 1 million troops dug in defensively, fighting in territory they knew well, using many of the same weapons the Russians have now. His casualties were like 20% - 30%. Russia would be worse.