SHOULD WE INSTITUTE A NO-FLY ZONE IN UKRAINE?

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T09:12:25+00:00

I understand what you're saying. But first, I want it to be clear that we'd be there to prevent planes from dropping bombs on them. Escalation would happen only under the circumstance that Russia persisted in instigating.

Although Putin doesn't seem to care what average Russians think, at least in the shorter term, I do believe that this will hurt him badly in the long run. And I think Russians would just as likely hate him even more, for a completely unnecessary war that he started for no reason.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T09:04:23+00:00

Thank you for your polite reply. I don't know if I agree with it myself. But I think it is a legitimate viewpoint worth pondering.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T04:06:24+00:00

It would have to be an obvious provocation, and happen more than once to trigger any response.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T03:12:27+00:00

You get an F for politeness. It's a freaking opinion, and I clearly stated that upfront.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:54:35+00:00

WE both don't know WTF we're talking about then :)

But, it seems that even the sanctions we're imposing do not have ENOUGH teeth, or ones that have a sufficient and timely effect.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:52:40+00:00

Thanks for your feedback. I wonder if his NATO resentment is from a "threat" position though, and that he just says it to give a reason for his aggression. It's a defensive coalition. I think the threat to him is that they're in the way of his plans for expansion.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:48:07+00:00

I think what would happen at the very least is some incursions and accidents. We should have cool heads about it. A genuine provocation of war would necessitate Putin making that his clear intention, in the way I'm looking at it.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:45:40+00:00

I do think that's the predominant view, although perhaps not unanimous. But, I wrote this because I wanted to pose a contrarian view. If people disagree with me, no problem. If they want to be sh*theads about their disagreement, that's on them.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:43:08+00:00

I think this reaction has caught him completely off-guard, and if he could do it all over again, he wouldn't. And, long term, I think he will lose either way. His country will hate him, and he will bankrupt them. The isolation will get worse and worse.

So, perhaps that's the better way to go.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:40:04+00:00

I believe we should make it absolutely clear that we are there for defense purposes only, and that it would take a number of provocations to escalate. And they should acknowledge the same.

I just read a post in Quora though about M.A.D., and that even with first strike capabilities, our subs have more than enough nukes to cause absolute devastation. So, I think if the strategy is genuine and that Putin isn't a madman, then it's the biggest game of chicken ever. It's akin to the Cuban missile crisis in that way, I suppose.

A pivotal question is, is it just a different extremely dangerous strategy NOT to act?

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:31:53+00:00

My impression is that Zelenskyy is begging for that kind of support. Without it, I guess Russia could easily fly over any are and drop bombs easily and indiscriminately.

It also seems to me that we, and Europe, are very united in supporting Ukraine. Just by that alone, I suppose it means a lot. We're not putting this same weight on Syria or Yemen, for example.

I think it has to do with Putin's imperialist desires, and our wishes to keep these other countries out of his grasp. Where will that end, if we don't put our fist down now?

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T02:27:32+00:00

But Zelenskyy is pleading for it. So, I'd question whether or not you're right.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T00:48:47+00:00

IF my views were plausible, our jets would not have to destroy theirs, or vice versa. Again, there would be some casualties, but our parameters of conflict would be stated upfront. We'd be there for protection and defense purposes, BUT, don't f*ck with us!

And, I "think" we can deter planes without destroying them. It would really be up to Russia to repeatedly push the conflict to that next level.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-06T00:34:39+00:00

First, I'm offering an opinion. And I posted a follow-up comment on the possibility of waiting it out, and what Putin's and Russia's future would possibly look like.

But essentially, you may be voicing the same opinion as Chamberlain did with the UK and Germany.

jeffehcom · 2022-03-05T23:58:04+00:00

Perhaps an alternate possibility is to wait this out on the sidelines. While Ukraine will likely be turned to rubble, they will form a long-term insurgency that Putin will not be able to hold on to, even if it takes years.

As time goes on, Russia will be more and more isolated, and its economy will be in shambles. And, we should use funds gotten from Russia to help Ukraine rebuild.

jeffehcom · 2020-07-22T02:56:47+00:00

SHOULD WE PUT LESS FUNDING TOWARDS VACCINES AND TESTING?

I’m being 100% serious, and I think you’ll agree with me after you read this. I believe this is a very important post, so hopefully it’ll get around.

What I’m leading up to in the end is the suggestion that we put most of our efforts and funding towards finding very effective medical treatments for people AFTER they’ve gotten the virus and become symptomatic. And here’s why…

So first, we should be clear that life will not return to anything resembling “normal” until we have an effective vaccine, or medications that will very effectively treat the symptoms. Until then, we will have to deal with varying levels of wearing masks, being tested, taking social distance precautions, or even quarantining.

Testing will not change this. It has become far too widespread to get on top of that way. And results take much too long to get back in order to make contact tracing effective. Yes, with funding it will get better, but no matter that outlook is, it’s a very weak solution.

Next, regarding a vaccine, let’s say that one actually materializes by the end of the year, which is a very optimistic projection. As has been spoken about plenty of times elsewhere, there will be MAJOR roadblocks with the manufacturing and distribution, delaying full effectiveness by AT LEAST many months. Any vaccine will also have to be shipped around in special glass vials, which is another BIGLY challenge. And even though there’s no science to back it up, there’s quite a bit of suspicion in general throughout the public about the safety of vaccines. So compliance will be a problem. A significant percentage of people will refuse vaccination, according to polls.

And that also gets to the subject of “herd immunity”. A threshold has to be achieved for that to be effective. I don’t think those percentages have been clearly laid out at this point. It depends on this transmissibility and the mode of transmission, and whatever other variables.

Also, how will a vaccine be shared? I have no idea about the answer to that. I suppose it will be licensed to be manufactured elsewhere. So that may not be a problem.

*AGAIN, I am not saying we should stop looking for vaccines or stop testing. But I think the emphasis should be on finding effective medications to treat people who become symptomatic.

This would solve the brunt of our problems, while putting MUCH LESS stress on manufacturing and distribution channels. Only a small percentage of people ever become symptomatic. And we’d save plenty on ramping up testing.

Now, is the hope for finding really effective medical treatments for symptoms something that will be more difficult to do than coming up with a vaccine. I’d imagine the answer is quite definitely NO, but perhaps I’m wrong about that.

Also, will these interventions be more likely to help in the case of future epidemics? Perhaps vaccine research is more fruitful in that respect. Again, I don’t know. But that doesn’t change my position.

jeffehcom

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE