“Using a bottle of milk” is a bit different than “using a missile.” My point is clear. You make weapons of war with the intent of them being used for war.
They are made to last for quite a while. Look at Russia, they are still going through equipment and ammunitions made for the cold war. So yeah, as long wars keep happening, there is a good chance weapon stockpiles will eventually get used. And it doesn’t look like wars are going to stop happening anytime soon.
Also weapons being decomissioned (destroyed without being used) or ageing equipment being converted for training/practice is also quite common. So not all weapons will eventually get used in war.
I still don’t see your point. You’re basically saying most hammers will eventually used to hammer a nail. I agree. It just isn’t a very insightful statement.
Bud, Russia is aggressive because Putin’s entire rise to power was built on manufactured fear. He likely used FSB agents to execute false flag attacks on Russian citizens and blame it on Chechen separatists. He has had to build on that fear to maintain power, developing a mythological Imperial past that was “stolen” by the west. Conquering Ukraine is the first step in “resurrecting” that glorious fiction. Russia will not stop pursuing this fever dream until Putin and his government are gone - they can’t. It’s basically the only thing keeping them in power. I don’t like wars either, but until we can collectively figure out how to stop these authoritarian impulses there just isn’t any alternative. It’s the paradox of tolerance, essentially
The war is directly linked to the cold war, so it’s pointless to talk what would have happend if the cold war would have ended differently.
But let’s assume the political situation would have been the same and just the stockpile of old soviet weapons was gone: I’d say yes, they would have been just as aggressive in the beginning. After all the didn’t really intended to be relying on their old stockpile at the start.
Probably not. The issue is that we can only control one side. So decommissioning requires trust and obviously the current Russia can not be trusted and no Politician would be willing to gamble with the security of people and country if they can just invest money into arms instead. It’s the prisoner dilemma with an extremely skewed reward/risk ratio.
That’s kind of true for all non-perishable goods. So what’s your point?
“Using a bottle of milk” is a bit different than “using a missile.” My point is clear. You make weapons of war with the intent of them being used for war.
Do you have car home or renter’s insurance? If so, when are you planning on setting fire to your home?
Yes, I know it’s different that’s what I specified non-perishable. Milk is perishable.
All tools are made with the intent for being used for their purpose …
Your point is not clear.
Missiles aren’t made to last forever.
Funny example that, considering how many missiles do go unused. Are you disagreeing with your own post then?
No, I’m not trying to win a semantics argument but if you wish, you win semantics. Here’s your semantics trophy:
They are made to last for quite a while. Look at Russia, they are still going through equipment and ammunitions made for the cold war. So yeah, as long wars keep happening, there is a good chance weapon stockpiles will eventually get used. And it doesn’t look like wars are going to stop happening anytime soon.
Also weapons being decomissioned (destroyed without being used) or ageing equipment being converted for training/practice is also quite common. So not all weapons will eventually get used in war.
I still don’t see your point. You’re basically saying most hammers will eventually used to hammer a nail. I agree. It just isn’t a very insightful statement.
Would Russia be as aggressive as they are today if they didn’t have stockpiles from the Cold War?
Bud, Russia is aggressive because Putin’s entire rise to power was built on manufactured fear. He likely used FSB agents to execute false flag attacks on Russian citizens and blame it on Chechen separatists. He has had to build on that fear to maintain power, developing a mythological Imperial past that was “stolen” by the west. Conquering Ukraine is the first step in “resurrecting” that glorious fiction. Russia will not stop pursuing this fever dream until Putin and his government are gone - they can’t. It’s basically the only thing keeping them in power. I don’t like wars either, but until we can collectively figure out how to stop these authoritarian impulses there just isn’t any alternative. It’s the paradox of tolerance, essentially
The war is directly linked to the cold war, so it’s pointless to talk what would have happend if the cold war would have ended differently.
But let’s assume the political situation would have been the same and just the stockpile of old soviet weapons was gone: I’d say yes, they would have been just as aggressive in the beginning. After all the didn’t really intended to be relying on their old stockpile at the start.
I couldn’t say either way but those weapons are for sure finding their home.
Sure. But the war wasn’t caused by the weapons existing.
Probably not. The issue is that we can only control one side. So decommissioning requires trust and obviously the current Russia can not be trusted and no Politician would be willing to gamble with the security of people and country if they can just invest money into arms instead. It’s the prisoner dilemma with an extremely skewed reward/risk ratio.