posted by ptown_trojans_1Considering if we should have one, it would violate the Biological Weapons Convention of which we are a member, we would get a ton of international outcry.
Probably get a shit ton of blowback from NATO too.
Russia is getting flak for cluster bombs and targeting nuclear power plants, rightly so.
I am guessing the Russians would respond far harsher than the UK did in Salisbury.
posted by ptown_trojans_1If the US doesn't follow international law and rules, why should Russia or China then?
As you said there are different rules for nuclear weapons states.
posted by ptown_trojans_1If the US doesn't follow international law and rules, why should Russia or China then?
They don't now.
posted by majorsparkAs you said there are different rules for nuclear weapons states.
Yes. The US and Russia are nuclear equals, but we hold the moral high ground as we always have.
The Shining City on a Hill as Reagan said.
posted by queencitybuckeyeThey don't now.
And they are a pariah. Do you want us to be as well?
posted by ptown_trojans_1And they are a pariah. Do you want us to be as well?
I couldn't care less about law, I care about right and wrong, and they aren't remotely the same thing. If breaking international law stops what Russia is doing, by all means we should do so.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI couldn't care less about law, I care about right and wrong, and they aren't remotely the same thing. If breaking international law stops what Russia is doing, by all means we should do so.
I'd just say opinions of right and wrong vary, hence the law and international treaties.
I agree we need to stop Russia, but we cannot just do whatever to do it. The ends do not always justify the means.
That leads down a very dark path. Are you willing to sacrifice a whole city to do it? Kill millions because we are in the right? That is Herman Kahn, Strangelove territory.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yes. The US and Russia are nuclear equals, but we hold the moral high ground as we always have.
The Shining City on a Hill as Reagan said.
The world is governed by the aggressive use of force.
posted by majorsparkThe world is governed by the aggressive use of force.
Agreed. That force can be military or and diplomacy, economic, etc.
But, to say it is ruled by brute military force ignores that Post World War II world you mentioned. It is also very much up for debate as it is the foundation of international relations. I have a whole self of my bookcase devoted to the subject.
posted by ptown_trojans_1That leads down a very dark path. Are you willing to sacrifice a whole city to do it? Kill millions because we are in the right? That is Herman Kahn, Strangelove territory.
Where did I suggest anything of the kind? Massive strawman.
posted by ptown_trojans_1You know that is illegal under international law right?
Also, be careful, because what's to stop some general from taking that as a direct assault from the US and launching nuclear weapons at us?
Are willing to take out Putin if it means a city is taken out?
There is a reason there are different rules for nuclear weapon states.
I wasn't asking the question to debate the merits of actually doing it; I merely asked "I wonder what would happen".
posted by queencitybuckeyeWhere did I suggest anything of the kind? Massive strawman.
You mentioned breaking international law if it means stopping Russia.
International law? Has any Russian been brought to justice for releasing a nerve agent in the UK and killing a british citizen? I get it just one bloke so its not worth a whole city.
The Russian count on this fear.
posted by QuakerOats
I wasn't asking the question to debate the merits of actually doing it; I merely asked "I wonder what would happen".
He responded as though you were POTUS and debating on whether to give the command to do this - as opposed to a poster on here. “Be careful…”
The West worries about pissing off Putin. He has been pissed since the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet leadership did not roll in the tanks. He was there in East Germany forced to burn documents and flee feeling betrayed by the leadership of his country. Just like someone else who unleashed hell in Europe.
posted by majorsparkThe West worries about pissing off Putin. He has been pissed since the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet leadership did not roll in the tanks. He was there in East Germany forced to burn documents and flee feeling betrayed by the leadership of his country. Just like someone else who unleashed hell in Europe.
Ironically they both loathed the other’s “philosophy” when in reality the are kind of cut from the same cloth.
posted by ptown_trojans_1You mentioned breaking international law if it means stopping Russia.
One has nothing to do with the other.
The better question is what has international law done to stop this action? You can't tell me that Putin hasn't violated it.
International law is basically an oxymoron.
Now we're bringing out the big guns - Netflix has canceled all subscriptions in Russia!
I guess we should applaud these companies as not doing business with Russia is all they can do. But, really, it's pointless. We've been STARVING the people of Cuba and NK for decades, and that hasn't toppled those governments.
posted by gutNow we're bringing out the big guns - Netflix has canceled all subscriptions in Russia!
I guess we should applaud these companies as not doing business with Russia is all they can do. But, really, it's pointless. We've been STARVING the people of Cuba and NK for decades, and that hasn't toppled those governments.
Hopefully the fact that the USSR, er Russia, is now accustomed to a certain capitalistic lifestyle that NK and Cuba are not and never were, and if that is all of a sudden taken away, maybe they'll be a harsh reaction. More likely is the fat oligarchs will turn on Putin if the sanctions hurt them. Obviously that's not what your point on Netflix was about, but just got me thinking.
