8 ms·

> If you think Putin wouldn't use that to rally Russia and launch a massive war, you haven't observed Putin for long. Do you believe that node-ipc would do thi

by FDSGSG 4y ago

> If you think Putin wouldn't use that to rally Russia and launch a massive war, you haven't observed Putin for long. Do you believe that node-ipc would do this but the current vastly more impactful sanctions regime wont? Also, everybody capable of thinking understands that Russia isn't capable of launching another "massive war" when it already has almost all of its conventional combat power committed to Ukraine. If you think Putin would launch a nuclear war over wiper malware, you're an idiot. There's no other kind of "massive war" he could launch at this point. > this software equivalent of a warcrime Why not call it software holocaust if we're gonna go there? What's wrong with you?

yyyk 4y ago
>Do you believe that node-ipc would do this but the current vastly more impactful sanctions regime wont? >There's no other kind of "massive war" he could launch at this point. Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West. Now, there's a level of escalation I'm fine with risking - say, over stationing peacekeepers in parts of Ukraine. Stuff that actually helps Ukrainians. But over an self-appointed idiot's personal action which doesn't help anyone and nobody asked for? $#@! no. >Why not call it software holocaust if we're gonna go there? What's wrong with you? It's attacking civilians as to influence their government (except Russia is a dictatorship and the government doesn't even care). I have more pointed comparisons in mind, but I'll spare the thread.
- def_true_false 4y ago
  What next? Is refusing doing business with Russia a war crime, too? After all, some civilians might lose their livelihoods and starve to death, right?
  - yyyk 4y ago
    There's an obvious difference between trying to hurt people and not trading with them yourself. If the distinction is difficult, there are laws to define this 'war crime' thing, you may wish to consult them. Also, Russia is relatively self-sufficient foodwise. There'll be shortages but no starvation. I'm sure though that if starvation was serious possiblity the West would exclude food imports.
    - vkou 4y ago
      I thought that food imports were already excluded from sanctions for this exact reason.
    - FDSGSG 4y ago
      > There's an obvious difference between trying to hurt people and not trading with them yourself Ah yes, because seizing Russian assets overseas is the same as "not trading with them".
      - yyyk 4y ago
        >Ah yes, because seizing Russian assets overseas is the same as "not trading with them". Your bank account is held under terms. There are cases where freezing withdrawals is allowed. If you wish to avoid that, you are entitled to store your money under your mattress (or use the latest crypto fad and be subject to absurd exchange rate variations).
      - vkou 4y ago
        Using another country's financial systems exposes you to significantly more counterparty risk, than using your own's. Nobody was forcing Russia's ruling class to have all their money in overseas bank accounts.
        FDSGSG 4y ago
        Same goes for using software from other countries, no?
    - def_true_false 4y ago
- FDSGSG 4y ago
  >Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West. That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals. "Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world. >It's attacking civilians as to influence their government Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency?
  - yyyk 4y ago
    >That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals. Some of them probably have military training, and quantity has a quality of its own. Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society. >"Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world. Our tolerance for that was absurd. As is our tolerance for this action. >Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency? I'm for sanctions. It's not inconsistent. There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians. It also prefers actions by legitimate authorities and not random vigilants. It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method, and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out). This action was by a random person (not even an Ukrainian), unauthorized by anyone (definitely not any Ukrainian authority), and was at best counterproductive (nobody has given me any way where this advances kicking Russia out), so any possibility of civilian harm is criminal.
    - FDSGSG 4y ago
      > Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society. You are mistaken if you believe that Russian society isn't already enthusiastic. But this isn't a country with the warrior culture US has, dying for your country isn't cool in Russia, it just means that you were too poor and/or stupid to dodge the draft. > There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians. Which law is that? > It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method Many of the sanctions are specifically targeting civilians, civilian businesses. > and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out). Oh no, you're deeply mistaken. The sanctions will not go away even if Russia gets kicked out of Ukraine, they're very much intended to be punitive.

by FDSGSG 4y ago

yyyk 4y ago

>Do you believe that node-ipc would do this but the current vastly more impactful sanctions regime wont? >There's no other kind of "massive war" he could launch at this point. Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West. Now, there's a level of escalation I'm fine with risking - say, over stationing peacekeepers in parts of Ukraine. Stuff that actually helps Ukrainians. But over an self-appointed idiot's personal action which doesn't help anyone and nobody asked for? $#@! no. >Why not call it software holocaust if we're gonna go there? What's wrong with you? It's attacking civilians as to influence their government (except Russia is a dictatorship and the government doesn't even care). I have more pointed comparisons in mind, but I'll spare the thread.

def_true_false 4y ago
What next? Is refusing doing business with Russia a war crime, too? After all, some civilians might lose their livelihoods and starve to death, right?
- yyyk 4y ago
  There's an obvious difference between trying to hurt people and not trading with them yourself. If the distinction is difficult, there are laws to define this 'war crime' thing, you may wish to consult them. Also, Russia is relatively self-sufficient foodwise. There'll be shortages but no starvation. I'm sure though that if starvation was serious possiblity the West would exclude food imports.
  - vkou 4y ago
    I thought that food imports were already excluded from sanctions for this exact reason.
  - FDSGSG 4y ago
    > There's an obvious difference between trying to hurt people and not trading with them yourself Ah yes, because seizing Russian assets overseas is the same as "not trading with them".
    - yyyk 4y ago
      >Ah yes, because seizing Russian assets overseas is the same as "not trading with them". Your bank account is held under terms. There are cases where freezing withdrawals is allowed. If you wish to avoid that, you are entitled to store your money under your mattress (or use the latest crypto fad and be subject to absurd exchange rate variations).
    - vkou 4y ago
      Using another country's financial systems exposes you to significantly more counterparty risk, than using your own's. Nobody was forcing Russia's ruling class to have all their money in overseas bank accounts.
      - FDSGSG 4y ago
        Same goes for using software from other countries, no?
  - def_true_false 4y ago
FDSGSG 4y ago
>Russian society isn't anywhere near enthusiastic. That's why Putin has been searching for ever dumber excuses. Give him an actual indefensible incident to rally society around, and he'll get a lot more manpower. That could expand the war to Odessa and Moldova, and also 'retaliatory' cyberwar in the West. That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals. "Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world. >It's attacking civilians as to influence their government Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency?
- yyyk 4y ago
  >That's just absurd fanfic. Sending in untrained "manpower" with no equipment would not help advance Russian goals. Some of them probably have military training, and quantity has a quality of its own. Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society. >"Cyberwar"? Russia has never before needed any excuses to unleash wiper worms like NotPetya onto the whole world. Our tolerance for that was absurd. As is our tolerance for this action. >Exactly like sanctions. Are you against sanctions too? If not, how do you explain that inconsistency? I'm for sanctions. It's not inconsistent. There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians. It also prefers actions by legitimate authorities and not random vigilants. It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method, and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out). This action was by a random person (not even an Ukrainian), unauthorized by anyone (definitely not any Ukrainian authority), and was at best counterproductive (nobody has given me any way where this advances kicking Russia out), so any possibility of civilian harm is criminal.
  - FDSGSG 4y ago
    > Regardless, Russia will not be able to subdue Ukraine, but there's nothing good coming from a more enthusiastic Russian society. You are mistaken if you believe that Russian society isn't already enthusiastic. But this isn't a country with the warrior culture US has, dying for your country isn't cool in Russia, it just means that you were too poor and/or stupid to dodge the draft. > There's a law for these things. That law allows sanctions but not attacking random civilians. Which law is that? > It also states that any possible harm to civilians must be incidental to the method Many of the sanctions are specifically targeting civilians, civilian businesses. > and that any harm be proportional to the possibility of achieving a legitimate goal (kicking Russia out). Oh no, you're deeply mistaken. The sanctions will not go away even if Russia gets kicked out of Ukraine, they're very much intended to be punitive.