[archagon]

Nothing - as in literally nothing - is worth seriously risking nuclear conflict. I can’t believe intelligent people are even entertaining this thought. The war is a travesty of the highest order, but I fear an existential threat to the West far, far less than the extinguishing of human civilization. Even the worst authoritarian empires, on a multi-generational timescale, can be outlasted. Nuclear war cannot.

[moistly]

Democracy is worth the risk. Defeating a “superpower” dictatorship is worth the risk.

[archagon]

If the risk is too high, no it is not, almost tautologically so. If nothing is left of humanity but a smoldering crater, then democracy is, and always has been, entirely meaningless. And the survivors (if any) would never forgive us.

Your logic is left over from pre-nuclear times, when it still made sense. As horrifying as it might be be to face this cold, post-nuclear calculus, we must do it to survive as a species. Which is not to say that we should not push back against aggressive dictators — we must, as much as we are able — but conventional warfare between nuclear powers has to forever be off the table.

[moistly]

Rule by a dictatorial kleptocracy renders humanity entirely meaningless. We must always fight against dictatorship and must never let it win. Better dead than yield to dictatorship.

[archagon]

It renders humanity less meaningful for a temporary period of time. Empires and regimes always dissipate eventually. Nuclear annihilation renders humanity meaningless forever. It is an unfathomably selfish preference, especially given that countless humans with meaningful lives have lived under kleptocratic dictatorships. I do not consent to be part of your death wish.

(But I do desperately hope and pray that Ukraine somehow manages to beat Russia back without massive loss of life.)

[CRConrad]

>>> Nothing - as in literally nothing - is worth seriously risking nuclear conflict.

> If the risk is too high, no it is not

Which shows why your original statement was wrong: It depends on how high the risk is. If the risk is low enough, it may be worth taking.

Remains only to find out exactly how high it is... Which becomes, AFAICS, an investigation into the psyche of Vladimir Putin.

[archagon]

Maybe I was unclear. This is why I used the phrasing "seriously risking".

[CRConrad]

So "serious" = "high"? Yeah, then of course I agree. The trouble is only determining is the risk high/serious or not.

On the whole, I lean towards Putin not being quite that crazy -- and hey, remember that even the Soviet Union had that ultimate safeguard, officers willing to disobey orders -- so it shouldn't be all that high. But it's hard to say for sure.

[jstgord]

well this is what Putin is gambling on - that he is willing to go closer to the nuclear brink and thus will win. That was true a month ago, I'm not sure its true today.

Wars are not decided based on pure logic - we are somewhat intelligent apes, we will risk it all to defend our tribe - particularly if we feel the aggression is unfair and unjustified.