• PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We have gone far further than any of those.

    Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.

    That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.

    • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war

      While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.

      You are falsely equivocating a 3rd party proxy war with a border conflict involving the actual imperial power. A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves. I don’t really think that would be cause to invade Russia after Mexico. If you are invading your neighbor, you should expect some foreseeable blow back.

      • combat_brandonism [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves.

        Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.

      • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.

        Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.

        WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?

        We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.

          One wouldn’t have happened if you had not taken your initial action? Are we debating the moral merit of defending an attack vs making an attack?

          WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland?

          I would say that Russia probably should have thought about that before annexing their neighbors lands? Does Russia have no onus to limit their actions for the sake of peace?

          relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.

          And they rely on that perception to do whatever they want. Putin is not deranged, he doesn’t want to die in nuclear hell fire either. He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

          • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are we debating the moral merit

            No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.

            Whether or not there’s a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.

            Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.

            He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

            I’m sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

            I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it’s worth it.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.

              Lol, now you’re sounding like fucking Brookings institute. Strategically speaking, one of the risk of starting a war on your border is the inevitable blowback on the home soil. Especially when that nation is being supplied by western nations.

              If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.

              According to whom? Ukraine has already made strikes on Russian territory with the help of western weapons, what was the rebuttal? It’s strategic gamesmanship, there are no rules set in stone.

              Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.

              Lol, I don’t plan wars… nor is this a moral policing action by America. Russia is competition to US interest, they are taking out a competitor. It’s not a moral decision, it’s an economic one. I’m just pointing out two wrongs don’t make a right.

              Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon

              I’m not saying they’ve been caught being naughty… I’m saying that America has been itching to do away one of the main competitions to us foreign interest for decades. Russia has largely avoided this confrontation by projecting their hard power via irregular military forces in locations the American public don’t care about.

              This scenario is different, as it is being done with regular military in a country with a large immigrant population in the US, who are perceived as white, and Christian. Putin overplayed his hand and is now engaged in a sunk cost fallacy of his own making.

              Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

              As his desire for expansion needs to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon… mutually assured destruction implies a mutual responsibility to maintain the status quo. You are basically arguing in favor for Nixon’s madman theory of foreign diplomacy, which didn’t work for him either.