Mike Dilger ☑️ on Nostr: I agre, it is a fallacy for me to include the option of using the atomic bomb at this ...

I agre, it is a fallacy for me to include the option of using the atomic bomb at this point.

I'm already convinced that this isn't the right logic for the situation. I don't think those bombers make up any significant part of Russia's nuclear response capability. My whole argument was based off some deceptive pro-Russian war mongering thinking about how it's Russias nuclear deterrance. But I don't think it is.

If an atomic bomb on Ukraine prevented Ukraine from further degrading Russia's nuclear response capability, then Russia does win something by using it. That is, if you know that you are about to get hit by a bus, and there is a button you can press to vaporize the bus, vaporizing the bus wins you something... your survival. Of course in absolute terms all war is destruction and loss. But war is fought anyways because of these kinds of reasonings.

I presume from your logic that you are Ukrainian. I'll speak in those terms, but perhaps I'm wrong, at least you'll understand my wording better.

Why do you care if your government is Ukrainian people that you don't know or control and who will cheat you and tax farm you, or if your government is Russian people that you don't know or control and who will cheat you and tax farm you? People living in Russia do not think that living under a Russian government is hell. But you seem to think it would be the worst thing ever.

Your logic is fatalism. You've chosen death: to fight Russia even if you knew that it would provoke a nuclear response. I don't know why, when there are indeed other options. Negotiated settlements. All your beliefs about Russia seem extreme and absolute. I think Ukraine has become a death cult. I'm wondering if the CIA instilled this cultish thinking, and how.

Yes every nuclear armed country could invade any other non-nuclear armed country. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Easter Bunny. That is why non nuclear-armed countries make security alliances with countries that have nuclear arms. Or if they don't think they are targets because they aren't of any strategic or economic value, like some Pacific island, then they don't even bother doing that.

The idea I keep hearing that all the world needs to pitch in and make sure countries don't invade other countries... why should they? The cost is high, the benefit is probably nil for most countries. That is why regional security groups make more sense than UN running the world (one world government is scary for many other reasons too).

Moral thinking and strategic thinking are not usually in alignment.