Post by Radrook Admin on Oct 22, 2022 8:52:42 GMT -5
Is it worth a Nuclear War?
I recently posted the following suggestion during a discussion in reference to the situation in Ukraine:
I recently posted the following suggestion during a discussion in reference to the situation in Ukraine:
If the people in those regions want to be part of Russia, let them be part of Russia. Unsure? Hold a United- Nation's-supervised vote so the populations can make their wishes clear. Why isn't that simple solution suggested?
Here is how someone under the name of Gabriel responded:
Firstly: because that's not how international politics works. That territory still belongs to Ukraine. If for example, a ton of people in Ontario, Canada voted that they all wanted to be Americans, that still wouldn't give the US a right to annex it.
Secondly: You're assuming that Russia would honor the results of a UN-supervised vote even if it didn't go in their favor. Which I think is definitely putting too much faith in the Russians, since Putin has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care about international law.
Thirdly: Why would Ukraine agree to that if it's still possible for them to win back those regions militarily? Leaving it up to chance doesn't benefit them at all.
Secondly: You're assuming that Russia would honor the results of a UN-supervised vote even if it didn't go in their favor. Which I think is definitely putting too much faith in the Russians, since Putin has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care about international law.
Thirdly: Why would Ukraine agree to that if it's still possible for them to win back those regions militarily? Leaving it up to chance doesn't benefit them at all.
Here is how I responded to that counterargument:
It's referred to as finding a solution via compromise in order to avoid a disaster. True, under normal circumstances, many of your arguments make sense. However, these are not normal circumstances. As you must be aware, we are at the brink of a nuclear WWIII if this is allowed to escalate because of our being too stubborn to make concessions or try an alternate solution to violence.
If we keep dismissing alternative solutions as useless without even trying, but choose force instead, then we are headed straight for a Third World-War where your precious United Nations ceases to exist along with your precious international Law along with most of life on Earth.
Under such an imminent situation, certain concessions that would otherwise not be considered must be considered in order to try to avoid a disaster.
Now let's consider your arguments one by one.
If we keep dismissing alternative solutions as useless without even trying, but choose force instead, then we are headed straight for a Third World-War where your precious United Nations ceases to exist along with your precious international Law along with most of life on Earth.
Under such an imminent situation, certain concessions that would otherwise not be considered must be considered in order to try to avoid a disaster.
Now let's consider your arguments one by one.
Argument:
Why would Ukraine agree to that if it's still possible for them to win back those regions militarily? Leaving it up to chance doesn't benefit them at all.
Response:
Because it isn't not possible to regain those territories militarily without getting us into a nuclear war. Putin has repeatedly told us he will resort to nuclear weapons. That will trigger a response from NATO and things will get out of control. Then there will no longer be a Ukraine to fight over-will there?
Why would Ukraine agree to that if it's still possible for them to win back those regions militarily? Leaving it up to chance doesn't benefit them at all.
Response:
Because it isn't not possible to regain those territories militarily without getting us into a nuclear war. Putin has repeatedly told us he will resort to nuclear weapons. That will trigger a response from NATO and things will get out of control. Then there will no longer be a Ukraine to fight over-will there?
Argument: You're assuming that Russia would honor the results of a UN-supervised vote even if it didn't go in their favor. Which I think is definitely putting too much faith in the Russians, since Putin has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care about international law
Response:
No, I am not assuming that about Putin. But it is necessary in order to establish whether he is telling the truth or not. Liars, if indeed they are lying, should be exposed for what they are. His argument is that these regions have a right to self-determination. He cites certain UN statements to that effect. These claims should be responded to directly instead of being ignored, and choosing to continue seeking a military solution via escalation.
Response:
No, I am not assuming that about Putin. But it is necessary in order to establish whether he is telling the truth or not. Liars, if indeed they are lying, should be exposed for what they are. His argument is that these regions have a right to self-determination. He cites certain UN statements to that effect. These claims should be responded to directly instead of being ignored, and choosing to continue seeking a military solution via escalation.
Argument:
Because that's not how international politics works. That territory still belongs to Ukraine. If for example, a ton of people in Ontario, Canada voted that they all wanted to be Americans, that still wouldn't give the US a right to annex it.
Response:
That's deontological thinking, or thinking via a strict, totally inflexible adherence to rules regardless of circumstances. Let's consider your example of Canada: If indeed a ton of people in Canada wanted to be American citizens, and be part of the USA, and the USA threatened a nuclear war over it, then concessions should be made to avoid it.
It's a matter of priorities and you seem to have your priorities all backwards. You seem to feel that adherence to rules and regulations are more important than the avoidance of a nuclear WWIII. Most people on this earth would disagree.
Because that's not how international politics works. That territory still belongs to Ukraine. If for example, a ton of people in Ontario, Canada voted that they all wanted to be Americans, that still wouldn't give the US a right to annex it.
Response:
That's deontological thinking, or thinking via a strict, totally inflexible adherence to rules regardless of circumstances. Let's consider your example of Canada: If indeed a ton of people in Canada wanted to be American citizens, and be part of the USA, and the USA threatened a nuclear war over it, then concessions should be made to avoid it.
It's a matter of priorities and you seem to have your priorities all backwards. You seem to feel that adherence to rules and regulations are more important than the avoidance of a nuclear WWIII. Most people on this earth would disagree.