Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

steruY t1_j632347 wrote

Reply to comment by Dependent-Law7316 in ELI5: How is donating equipment to participate in war, not considered going to war? by lloyd705

>no one wants to be the one to officially start world war 3

Let's hope so, after Russia started the invasion there is plenty of reasons to worry.

5

WasabiSunshine t1_j633j4c wrote

Eh They (decision makers of Russia) aren't going to fight a nuclear war with the west as they know MAD holds true as ever, and they aren't gonna fight a conventional war because why would they ever think that was a good idea

5

steruY t1_j635p7p wrote

"Зачем нам мир без России?" - "Why do we need the world without Russia?" - a phrase commonly told by putin. A dictator who loses a self created war, loses power, and is desperate, is something to be feared. Russia doesn't want nuclear war, but nobody can say so about its leader.

Maybe I'm just panicking, but there no need to keep the guard down.

1

Belzeturtle t1_j637cms wrote

You need three people acting unison to fire a strategic nuke, Putin being only one of them. These people have families, properties and lives they don't want to lose.

5

steruY t1_j639hjz wrote

Thanks, hope in humanity restored

1

aberroco t1_j63k42n wrote

But those people probably brainwashed to oblivion.

1

deaconsc t1_j63mmkt wrote

well, the fear is that Russia will use their tactical nuclear weapons, which will resolve in a retaliation of the US (they officially said so) which will be an act of war. (please note,the US said they will use conventional retaliation)

And to be fair, Russian generals probably want to use these weapons, it would make the war much easier and with the latest promised delivery of modern tanks it may cross the line.

1

Belzeturtle t1_j63n7zn wrote

>it would make the war much easier and with the latest promised delivery of modern tanks it may cross the line.

You mean following NATO's shock-and-awe conventional retaliation? They are not that dumb.

Putin is not going to use a tactical nuke because (a) Modi and Xi told him in private that's their red line and they won't support him if he does, (b) see above -- loss of Black Sea fleet at minimum, (c) a decapitation strike against him is then on the table.

4

bernarddit t1_j63rdyh wrote

How do you know they told him such in private?

3

Belzeturtle t1_j646cd9 wrote

"In private" in the sense "outside of their TV and press including it in their message". Those of us who live outside the Chinese and Russian infobubbles know.

2

jimmymd77 t1_j63h5w8 wrote

This is why the west had not given a blank check for Ukraine to get any weapons the ask for. If ukraine crosses into Russia, there is fear this would escalate further. Airstrikes and drones on military bases are OK, but not occupation.

Note Belorus allowing Putin to use their territory to stage the attack is generally also considered being a belligerent.

2

williamwchuang t1_j64xlul wrote

"Why should I die for Putin," is a commonly thought idea in the heads of the oligarchs.

2

provocative_bear t1_j64ryqu wrote

This is a silly bluff, though. The options are not just nuclear war or Russia is destroyed. The third, vastly preferable alternative is that Russia withdraws from a pointless foreign invasion and takes a ding as a nation but doesn’t come close to being destroyed. They’ve done it time and time again, they didn’t glass Afghanistan or the West for losing that conflict, this isn’t much different.

1

steruY t1_j66v7vi wrote

The options are either war is won or Putin loses power. And he doesn't want to lose power, believe me. That was my concern.

1

DolphinsBreath t1_j63pk7y wrote

It’s not like anyone wanted WWII either.

0

ThePKNess t1_j64cmn1 wrote

Well that's just nonsense, the Axis intentionally went to war knowing it would draw in the Western powers. Nazi Germany in particular specifically wanted another world war in order to reorder the world in their favour, much as they interpreted the First World War to have reordered the war in the Entente's favour.

If you want to argue that no-one wanted the First World War and it only occurred as a result of brinksmanship gone too far then you can certainly make that case. I wouldn't agree, but you could make that case.

1

DolphinsBreath t1_j69obua wrote

Missing the point. Some may have prepped for a war they wanted, but no one wanted the war we actually got. The lesson of WWI was forgotten in only 20 years; don’t take anything for granted.

1

ThunderChaser t1_j64va3m wrote

Germany did intentionally want to start a war.

1

DolphinsBreath t1_j69oj3e wrote

Just not that war. The one that actually happened in the real world. That’s the moral of the story.

1

alexmin93 t1_j63jjlm wrote

Are you living in Ukraine? If not, what are you worrying about? Russia has no chance against NATO

−1

CaptainAddi t1_j63ma3p wrote

If a nuke explodes in my backyard I dont really care anymore who wins the war

2

deaconsc t1_j63n53m wrote

Not the one you replied to, but hey, I can say what I worry about =)

We deliver modern tanks. Russia starts losing and Putin allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the Ukraine armed forces.

The US said they will retaliate over such usage. Let's say they will do what they promised and destroy the fleet in the area with conventional means only. This is an act of war of a NATO country (and major NATO player) against Russia.

ANd I fear that the retaliation of Russia will be the usage of strategic nuclear weapons against the European NATO countries as a response to the attack of the US.

1

alexmin93 t1_j63oa6m wrote

So you believe putin's tales about his nuclear Wunderwaffe? With or without nukes, russia loses VS NATO in any scenaro. US has a better alternative to any conventional AND nuclear weapon russia can field.

0

steruY t1_j63pts9 wrote

If you're naive enough to believe none of thousands of nukes in Putin's hands work, then you're really leaving in a bubble. "A better alternative" doesn't matter as a single nuke detonating is already millions of deaths.

1

alexmin93 t1_j63rp6f wrote

Ofc they have working nukes. The thing is - NATO has more and better nukes.

2

steruY t1_j63t9qa wrote

Well, that's not exactly the means of defense we're talking about. But ok, anyway, I stopped worrying

1

alexmin93 t1_j63vh0b wrote

NATO has better missile defense as well. It can't intercept all or even majority of russian nukes but it shifts balance in NATO balance even more

1

steruY t1_j6416b7 wrote

>all or even majority of russian nukes

...which means a wipeout of dozens of millions of people still. No need for nukes to be dropped ether way.

1

steruY t1_j63q1e7 wrote

Russia harmed most of its allies by withdrawing troops from the areas it used to protect, by sanctions, by its migrant policy, etc.

Even if it loses, plenty of countries are taking a noticeable toll as well.

1