by godelski | 2025-05-19 20:51:55+00:00
> your condescension is unnecessary.

There is no condescension.

Believing you might not understand the situation is a legitimate and reasonable belief.

Providing historical records and operational context is not patronizing.

These are important details with high relevance to the topic at hand, especially considering the noisy information environment around these sensitive topics where there are large amounts of accidental and intentional misinformation or propaganda. It warrants letting the record be set straight. What I have stated are facts or well discussed beliefs of military strategy and the underlying ideas of what has led to such treaties and global policies. The conjectures made are not of my own but of general consensus by military scholars. And to clarify, the conjecture is with respect to what might happen, not with what did. Conjecture only exists where is necessary: predicting future events.

> You are completely ignoring > a) That Russia did attack multiple nuclear sites > b) That Russia has used Zaporizhzhia

I am not. These events are well documented in the link I provided. Which also includes a link to the IAEA's current statements and status.

Clarification: you should differentiate site from reactor and infrastructure necessary to maintain radioactive containment.

I made such a clarification in stating what is permissible under the Geneva Conventions and what is not.

Note that linked page's summary highlights that the IAEA has had permanent presence at the facilities since January 2023.

I would also like to request you read the linked material in full and pay careful attention to the targets and tactics used. I made a point about the Geneva Conventions not just for sake of the PRC but because it strongly clarifies the difference between what is allowed and what isn't. It is clear Russia is toeing this line and I'll agree may have even crossed it. But we must be clear that there is a large distinction between targeting the reactors or structure critical to ensuring reactor containment is maintained from taking operational control. These are wildly different situations, notably the former leading to the nuclear disaster you suggested and continue to.

Again, I want to stress conjecture occurs only in relation to future events and does not deviate from the general consensus of (global) military scholars. Only summarized for brevity.

> c) That it isn't sufficient to say "nothing bad happened this time", *BUT YOU MUST ALSO SAY "IT IS VERY UNLIKELY SOMETHING BAD COULD HAVE HAPPENED", > AND THAT YOU CAN ***UNDENIABLY*** SAY THAT HERE. [emphasis my own to draw focus to an obtuse accusation]

*THE MAJORITY OF MY POST IS DEDICATED TO THIS*

Here is a summary that may be more easily parsed:

- unlikely when: - invading or seeking occupation (b/c you destroy the "goods" you seek) - do not wish to incur outside involvement (i.e. retaliation or direct armed conflict with additional countries/organizations (i.e. NATO)) - must maintain strategic alliances in global politics (i.e. PRC undermines its most important objective of replacing US as global leader by obtusely violating many international laws and creating a physical reminder of these autocracies that will last for centuries) - likely when: - willingness to use nuclear weapons - No intention of invasion AND believe can withstand global political ramifications - MAD (mutually assured destruction) - intent to commit genocide regardless of global ramifications and harm to self (i.e. India and Pakistan)

We must also make clear distinctions to note that threats have and will be made regardless of intent to actually act upon. I also will say that such threats must always be treated as serious. We have seen this with Putin.

> Here are a few statements by the IAEA

The IAEA statements are congruent with what I've stated. Previously and currently. They acted in a reasonable manner. I am in agreement that action must be taken if there are any risks or threats made. But seeking involvement of third party international organizations to prevent risks of escalation is substantially different than such tragedies having occurred. There is no question that tragedy did not occur and I do not make claim that we should not be closely monitoring the situation nor that we should be dismissive of such risks.