The problem is that if we do whatever it takes to avoid “pushing” Putin into using nukes, then in effect we’re saying he can do whatever he wants because he has nukes.
Given that Russia literally sees accelerating climate change as advantageous to them, an unchecked Russian Federation might actually do more damage to life on earth than nuclear war would, over a long enough timeline.
The only rational play is to treat his threats as hollow, because time and time again he’s proven that they are. Otherwise we’re basically just handing Putin an “I do what I want” card.
Actual nuclear war or climate change really only damage the things currently living. Life will always succeed in some form, even if we don’t. I understand where you’re coming from tho
I’m really not sure where you think I said “End life on Earth”, “Destroy the planet” or any of the other possible phrasings you seem to be trying to react to.
I feel like you had this response in the chamber ready to go, saw the words “climate change” and immediately skipped reading everything else.
“Do more damage to life on earth than actual nuclear war would”
That’s a quote from your comment that I replied to. I think both would be equally disastrous for the life that currently lives here as true MAD would wipe out humanity and most animals and greatly alter living conditions, similar to how climate change will.
The problem is that if we do whatever it takes to avoid “pushing” Putin into using nukes, then in effect we’re saying he can do whatever he wants because he has nukes.
Given that Russia literally sees accelerating climate change as advantageous to them, an unchecked Russian Federation might actually do more damage to life on earth than nuclear war would, over a long enough timeline.
The only rational play is to treat his threats as hollow, because time and time again he’s proven that they are. Otherwise we’re basically just handing Putin an “I do what I want” card.
Actual nuclear war or climate change really only damage the things currently living. Life will always succeed in some form, even if we don’t. I understand where you’re coming from tho
I’m really not sure where you think I said “End life on Earth”, “Destroy the planet” or any of the other possible phrasings you seem to be trying to react to.
I feel like you had this response in the chamber ready to go, saw the words “climate change” and immediately skipped reading everything else.
“Do more damage to life on earth than actual nuclear war would”
That’s a quote from your comment that I replied to. I think both would be equally disastrous for the life that currently lives here as true MAD would wipe out humanity and most animals and greatly alter living conditions, similar to how climate change will.
Nuclear war’s effect on the biosphere would be orders of magnitude worse than the effects of climate change.
Doubling down on your own misunderstanding doesn’t make it any less of a misunderstanding.