Comment by mmooss
> Not sending money to Ukraine means people die.
Yes, and lose their freedom, and it greatly increases the risk that many more will die and lose their freedom.
> Not sending money to Ukraine means people die.
Yes, and lose their freedom, and it greatly increases the risk that many more will die and lose their freedom.
1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons
2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate
3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry
If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither.
> 1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons
How? The nation with nuclear weapons probably understands that it will suffer a lot in a nuclear war, or will likely get hit with nuclear weapons itself, right?
> 2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate
So what? It may be desperate, but can't use nuclear weapons because - see pt. 1. - it may think it will hit itself with nuclear weapons. Ok, maybe not even nuclear weapons - but that nation may also understand that it won't stand long against focused non-nuclear attack.
> 3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry
Nations, really, aren't people, saying they are angry is complicated. Maybe leaders will become more angry, but what could they do? Ok, even if everybody will get more angry, so what?
> If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither.
You can't prevent nukes - they exist in the world - and can't even guarantee you can prevent war, but you should carefully estimate what bad and good consequences your actions will have. Is it better to try to stop an aggressor? What may happen if you do? What may happen if you don't?
Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war in which even more people will die and lose their freedom.