Progressive Politics

But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument?

Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that's not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don't think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.

To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don't support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.

(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

And I don't fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.

So like Kat's saying do with Taiwan what wasn't done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that's a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn't work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.

(And for the record I think she's going to win and I don't have a problem with that. She'll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I'd take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)