Heck, even browsing reddit comments and hacker news comments I've seen no view encouraging nuclear war. Even 4chan doesn't seem to have any posts proclaiming this view.
People are talking about the Russians being brainwashed, but read most of the comments in this thread and you'll realize they're far from being the only ones.
Here's a sovereign nation that tries to save its independence, pleading with the West / EU / NATO for protection. Then you have a ruler who has been saying for years that that nation should not exist and should be part of his empire, then proceeds to invade.
The framing of this as a NATO vs Russia issue, where NATO should "back down" to prevent further escalation, making Ukraine merely a pawn in some greater game, is absolutely disgusting.
What I have seen is large groups of people taking the position that the West should not let Russia use threats of a potential Nuclear war to bully the west around too much. That the West should not back down just because Russia has Nukes and is threatening to use them.
Some of them may offer views that Putin might be bluffing, or that his command structure might not follow the order to launch a large scale strike. Or that Russian Nuclear weapons are probably so poorly maintained that they won't even get off the ground anyway.
But these people seem to generally accept that their position might lead to a full-scale nuclear conflict, and that's a risk that is worth taking.
I personally don't think these views should be descried as "cheering on the idea of a nuclear conflict", but there probably people taking on the position that anything other than avoiding further escalation counts as "pro nuclear conflict". I have absolutely seen Russian diplomats taking this position.
for my entire life, the media has portrayed him as either an evil genius or a mad-man (sometimes, both). in any case, it's painted a picture of a man perfectly capable of taking everyone down with him. why should i think otherwise?
note: i am being completely earnest in this response. in the last week, i have thrown up several times post doom-scrolling on twitter. i had to delete the app. i am convinced this will end up with everyone in dust. my mind has reverted to the following quote from The Wasteland several times:
<< "And I will show you something different from either
<< Your shadow at morning striding behind you
<< Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
<< I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
The problem with this approach is that in every future conflict this argument will be in play and so in every future conflict there is no plausible way to finish the conflict other than let the aggressor roll with it.
This might be the first time when a nuclear weapon is used offensively without being fired.
He might use nukes just because he's loosing in Ukraine.
He might use them at any point because he already feels threatened.
He might use them because he had a bad dream.
How can we take any of this into account?
The only thing we can do is to choose the fiction we believe in.
And I think correct fiction to believe in is the one that Putin won't use too many nukes if NATO won't cross Russia borders and clearly advertises that intent.
And if Putin really uses some nukes (probably against military targets in Ukraine) and NATO won't respond with their nukes, just with conventional means, nuclear restraint won't be broken, by anyone except a clear madman
And no, of course we don't have any guarantees either way. But just like Putin puts his troops in Ukraine and says "what are you going to do about it", I believe we should do the same thing back - impose a no fly zone above Ukraine and call his idiotic bluff, he knows what attacking NATO would mean for him too.
All of that will increase resources wasted for militarization, lower the efficiencies of the economies and delays action on climate change.
And all of that is the best case scenario.
Europe is now (possibly) united, but only in suffering.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?
But before that, given the apparent weakness of Russian conventional army NATO should show no restraint and pay no attention to a single word out of Putins mouth.
Basically demand from Russian system of power to deliver war criminal mr. Vladimir Putin to Hague before talks can be resumed and Russia may have any hope of loosening economic sanctions.
It's a matter of policy that the US will launch all its nukes if even one nuke is launched by the other side. It only makes sense that the other side would do the same.
There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If someone launches a nuke, all nukes are launched.
And that's why nukes work, they take war to its logical conclusion: everyone dies.
The US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the entire world many times over. It doesn't matter where you are, you'll either die quickly or slowly, but you'll die none the less.
It's more flexible then that and this article specifically talks about that.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked.
It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.
MAD has protected the peace for 70 years. Going around saying that it’s best to take the morale high ground is a nice sound bite, but it is not reality. Your freedoms and lifestyle is paid for by the mutual unwillingness of a handful of governments to not destroy the Earth. This balance has been in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 70 years.
When you’re out at movies, playing soccer with your kids, or protesting some injustice, the only reason you’re able to do those things are because there are another group of far more serious people ready to glass the Russians and the Chinese if they try anything.
This article clearly states that Putin won't start with all the nukes, just one, on military target or just for show.
Then NATO should condemn but not reapond likewise.
Because lack of nuclear response to such limited action does not affect MAD in any way.
And nuclear response just normalizes use of nukes.
MAD is only about the fact that if country is at existential threat it will respond by launching all nukes.
But neither US nor Russia is at existential threat when they lauch just a few at proxy targets.
Don't get me wrong, it's still an atrocity, but it isn't existential threat to those countries and probably won't trigger MAD.
All leaders must know that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with the complete annihilation of their country. This is the ONLY sane policy.
Tit for tat is for bullets.
Sure. That's why I'm saying that even if Putin uses one or few nuclear warheads, NATO should restrain itself and not use any, just beat Russian army in Ukraine purely with conventional and economic means.
I live in a comparatively rural area, having moved out of Boston just over two years ago. Maybe longer-term residents have a better network here, but I'm personally pretty reliant on food from afar.
Setting aside any concerns about radiation sickness, a massive refugee crisis and literally every other short-term effect, I think it's safe to assume that there will be no fuels available to transport food, or anything else for that matter.
In the event of nuclear winter, there will be few options to grow food, at least not what we're accustomed to growing in our current climate. Wild sources of food may fail, or quickly become exhausted.
And I live in an area with fairly reliable perennial streams (for now. Let's set aside questions of how nuclear war might impact the water cycle). Imagine if you live in the desert Southwest, where your access to water is wholly dependent on electricity unless you have the excellent fortune to live near one of the few large rivers.
No, my biggest fear of nuclear war is that I might survive it.
because death is for all we know very permanent. I would rather be alive and miserable than be dead. I know i will die one day but i would rather put that off as long as possible.
And then there are all these batshit crazy rumours about them destroying nuclear power plants or holding it hostage. Why the fuck would Putin do that?
That's not how people make threats. They are ambiguous for their own reasons. The media is supposed to report what's said, then people who know these things will tell what Putin actually means. The media jump the gun and put words in people's mounth is highly unethical, given the stake.
Deterrence isn't synonymous to nuclear why do I have to explain this. If you aim normal missiles to someone that's deterrence too.
Again, that is NOT the point here. The point is, the media's job is to report exactly what he said. "National Security", or whoever can then interpret it as "nuclear", and make a statement about it, then the media can report on that too. The media dubbing "nuclear" over what Putin said, is wrong. If we can't trust them on doing the basic job, then we can't trust them on anything.
“Deterrence” is not generally limited to nuclear deterrence, though there are contexts where that is implied.
One of the functions of the conventional forces being deployed to NATO’s eastern flank in the present crisis is deterrence, of the non-nuclear variety.
(Putin’s reference to “deterrent forces” given the context of recent highly publicized nuclear high alert and other circumstances pretty clearly implies strategic nuclear forces, but you are way overgeneralizing.)
World peace is trivial and inevitable, yet we mess up all the time. Every single person subconsciously votes against world peace. Some votes may count more than others but ultimately it's not a tiny minority that wants to see conflict. It's absolutely everyone.
I've stopped believing all conspiracy theories that involve small groups of elites running the show. Sure, there is always going to be a handful of people at the top but this is true for everything. The elites may benefit disproportionately, however, they benefit precisely because the vast majority support them directly or indirectly. Sure, you can make some people a head shorter but the people that granted them power aren't gone.
For Russia the trail is pretty obvious. We buy Russian oil and directly support Putin. Even if you get rid of Putin, someone else will take his place because we still want to buy the oil after the war.
Abused my whole life, but promised my college tuition would be paid for by parents. That was a lie so I have no family and 110k in debt. 15 years out of college and I still can't get a development job.
Been working as a Baker most of my life. I saw an ex girlfiend become big time designer at Microsoft with a portfolio of stick figures. An old friend with no high school diploma get a job at Facebook. Meanwhile, fuck me. I have designed and developed my own apps, started my own businesses, learned to fly a plane, and earned a black belt. Meanwhile, I can't convince an HR person with a sociology degree to notice anything (which why am I even talking to someone that isn't in the same field as me?).
Everyone who claimed to love me has back stabbed me emotionally and financially.I am half Mexican and white and fit in with absolutely no one. I have experienced extreme racism my whole life, but I look white so no one gives a fuck. Individualism makes absolutely no sense to me. Humanity doesn't really seem to be working together towards anything so I don't see a future worth living for. People seem to hate space exploration, so why bother continuing.
Ultimately, I was probably going to kill myself when the government starts garnishing my wages since I am not paying back my college loans and don't intend to. I would rather die that be an indentured servant for something I never would have done if it wasn't promised to be paid for. So a nuclear strike sounds way more fun than sleeping pills.
It's incredibly selfish, but most of you are spoiled and privileged that you think the majority of people have time to think about pronouns, which I find far more selfish of an act.
So yeah, I would love to see humanity perish.
There are a bunch of moderation issues raised by posts like this, but none of them have to do with not caring about the people who are writing them, and that certainly includes you.