If your plan is one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead, it's a bad plan. Attacking strawpersons doesn't make it better. You need a better plan.

> one that ends with the end of the world and billions dead

The point is it doesn’t. Ukraine is on its way to wiping out Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s pure posturing to pretend Moscow is stupid enough to end its existence over a naval battle, much less simply credible threats of one.

> The point is it doesn’t.

That statement doesn't really amount to much given the risk. I think we need something far more convincing; and many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk.

Imagine Trump threatens to nuke Russia if they don't leave Ukraine tomorrow, according to your logic they shouldn't run the risk of a nuclear exchange and Russia should retreat.

Is this correct?

Spot on. Recognising Putin’s fake lines normalizes a nuclear response to conventional tactics. That path opens to a future where it would be irrational not to constantly threaten nuclear holocaust for minor military advantage. And in that world, someone will eventually miscalculate.

And Russia could threaten to nuke the US unless the US surrendered Poland. Obviously, the hypotheticals are absurd and flawed.

> many experts clearly think nuclear war is a risk

Look up what they said would trigger a nuclear war at the start of the invasion. Many of those things have already happened.

They said it was a risk. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't disprove that. A 1/100 risk of nuclear war almost certainly wouldn't happen, and would be far too high of a risk.

Also, Biden vary carefully managed that risk by slowing boiling the frog. Too carefully, I thought, but it's reasonable that his overwhelming priority was preventing nuclear war.

It's not yet demonstrated Russia will make the jump from a limited conventional confrontation to an all out nuclear war, even as its territory is under daily attack from a non-nuclear country.

It's not demonstrated, sure, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. This isn't rolling out an update to the text editor.

Sounds like your criticism is better leveled at the country threatening nuclear holocaust if someone sneezes at them.

It's not an issue of fairness or blame, but of outcomes. I am not part of the Russian electorate talking to Russians.

Yes, Russia is the problem, but that's not really relevant (or, frankly, mature). The situation is what it is, and we must decide how to get the best outcomes.

I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…

By definition anything is preferable to global nuclear holocaust, so I'm not sure where you want to go with your argument.

I am glad you didn’t run the Cold War.

Edit: by that I mean, with that attitude we would just have never developed nukes, or given the nukes to the Russians preemptively, because who wants nuclear war, right? Anything is better than that.

Can I have your house if I threaten to nuke you? Assume I have a nuke. How about your wife?

If the nuke threat isn't reasonable and proportional then you must ignore it.

Nukes are for existential risks. Which is 1) enemy nukes, and 2) invasion of the capital. Anything else is bluster and coercion.