Timeline for Why would a state retaliate to a nuclear strike if the consequences could be human extinction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26 at 17:18 | history | bounty ended | JonathanReez | ||
| Jan 25 at 7:01 | history | edited | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
My goodness, how did I not realize that it's not Putin that said that?
|
| Jan 25 at 6:56 | comment | added | David Hammen | From the link, it was the Russian state television host Dmitry Kiselyov rather than Putin who said "Why do we need a world if Russia is not in it?" That said, this statement epitomizes MAD. Why do we need a world if America/Russia/China/France/Britain/India/Pakistan/Israel/Iran is not in it? You kill my country and I'll kill yours, ten times over. | |
| Jan 23 at 19:55 | comment | added | Schwern | While you're right some people do think that way, the analogy to nuclear retaliation is you'd kill everyone in the serial killer's town in retaliation whether they had anything to do with it or not. A country is not a person, a country is not an individual. A country is made of people, but it is not the people. The country's decisions are not the decisions of the people of that country. Individuals do not bear responsibility for the decisions of their leaders, leaders they may not support and may not even have a say in who they are. | |
| Jan 22 at 22:37 | comment | added | barbecue | If you want to kill serial killers with nuclear weapons without killing everyone around them, your best bet is probably to beat them to death with it. | |
| Jan 22 at 2:10 | history | edited | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 306 characters in body
|
| Jan 21 at 15:36 | history | answered | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |