How the Comfort of Society relates to a Country’s Willingness to Go to Bat For Another Country in Need

[Huntn]

My wife was recently getting a massage, Ukraine came up, and the primary concern of her masseuse was more the cost of living, price of gasoline, how is this going to effect me, which made me think, the larger group of people in a society who struggle are much less likely to want money spent on some foreign cause.

However her masseuse was angry about the Ukraines suffering and thought we should nuke Russia… I’ll just let that lay there, other than to say my wife informed her of the concept and problems associated with nuclear Armageddon.

Now it could be argued that those struggling financially typically don’t have a lot to do with decisions made, but they are definitely part of the popularity a leader enjoys when it comes to a time when tough decision and sacrifices must be made. This is said as I look at the US and both 2022 and 2024, but I think it effects all democratic countries. So my inference is that if you want to blame corporatism or lack of social spending, it is business policies that are adopted by a society that can effect a country’s willingness to help others in need, and actually set that country back from a leadership standpoint in the aftermath good deeds that help someone else.

 

[MarkusL]

However her masseuse was angry about the Ukraines suffering and thought we should nuke Russia… I’ll just let that lay there, other than to say my wife informed her of the concept and problems associated with nuclear Armageddon.

My brother also thinks the US should nuke Russia. After seeing the poor performance of the Russian invaders in Ukraine he thinks it's a 50% chance that they have maintained their nukes so poorly that nothing is going to happen when they press their button, and there is only one way to find out.

 

[SuperMatt]

My brother also thinks the US should nuke Russia. After seeing the poor performance of the Russian invaders in Ukraine he thinks it's a 50% chance that they have maintained their nukes so poorly that nothing is going to happen when they press their button, and there is only one way to find out.

The problem with calling Putin’s nuclear bluff is that if we’re wrong, we could go extinct.

Russia doesn’t appear to be able to win this war anytime soon, and they are indiscriminately shelling and bombing. With this disregard for international law and human life, I am leaning towards hope that there will be a UN resolution authorizing peacekeeping forces if Putin continues on this path. I doubt Putin would retaliate if the entire world is against him.

 

[MarkusL]

The problem with calling Putin’s nuclear bluff is that if we’re wrong, we could go extinct.

Russia doesn’t appear to be able to win this war anytime soon, and they are indiscriminately shelling and bombing. With this disregard for international law and human life, I am leaning towards hope that there will be a UN resolution authorizing peacekeeping forces if Putin continues on this path. I doubt Putin would retaliate if the entire world is against him.

My counterargument to my brother's idea would be that on a technical level I don't think it is one button that needs to work. It is probably hundreds of buttons, and if half of them work it is still a disaster.

I don't know much about how the Russian nuclear arsenal is controlled. In the American system it is interesting to note that even though nobody is authorized to overrule the President's launch decision, the system is designed such that there are people with the ability to prevent the President's order from being fulfilled.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

If things really get down to the wire of a nuclear exchange let's not forget America's top secret weapon Nicolas Cage. I have my suspicions that Moscow has been putting most of their surveillance on Chuck Norris but that will prove to be a wasted distraction once we airdrop Nic on Putin's head.

 

[lizkat]

The problem with calling Putin’s nuclear bluff is that if we’re wrong, we could go extinct.

Russia doesn’t appear to be able to win this war anytime soon, and they are indiscriminately shelling and bombing. With this disregard for international law and human life, I am leaning towards hope that there will be a UN resolution authorizing peacekeeping forces if Putin continues on this path. I doubt Putin would retaliate if the entire world is against him.

The thing is, it's the UN Security Council that gets to authorize a tactical peacekeeping force. Putin would have it vetoed. The General Assembly only has a committee that monitors performance of peacekeeping and tracks the financing, that's about it.

I have trouble envisioning a negotiation where Russia agrees to a UN peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Of course I think the peacekeepers assigned to Ukraine would not and could not be from countries that are in NATO or otherwise seen as allied with the USA or with Russia. It sometimes feels like Russia is still even in the UN anyway only to be able to veto security council resolutions that Putin doesn't like.

Speaking of UN Peacekeeping, what happens when a mission's members are from countries that end up in war with each other, I wonder? I mean for example there's still a small UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, and there are troops listed there from Ukraine and from Russian Federation as well as from a number of other countries.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The thing is, it's the UN Security Council that gets to authorize a tactical peacekeeping force. Putin would have it vetoed. The General Assembly only has a committee that monitors performance of peacekeeping and tracks the financing, that's about it.

How perverse is that? The country you are at war with (splitting hairs to say that you really aren't) gets to veto any decision that works against their desired result. Sounds like something the 2020 RNC would put together.

Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of people continue to die while we have this polite society tea party where we don't want to upset any guests.