2 ms·

Didn't he say this > In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of al

Didn't he say this > In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff. I'd say that at least "implies" the possible use of nuclear weapons, no?

idiocrat 4y ago
Yes this is a direct threat of using nuclear weapons, but addressed for the NATO. This becomes clear if seen in the context of the speech. The cold war has actually never ended and the situation is getting worse. My argument is that this is not the premise of the article: "people worry about whether Putin could turn to tactical nukes if faced with a total defeat in Ukraine." Putin has enough conventional weapons for not to use the tactical weapons in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki desperate style.
thatguy0900 4y ago
How can that be a bluff to use nuclear weapons when he has none, and will never receive any? If anything that sounds more like a threat to use chemical weapons which he could probably make pretty easily if he was willing to forego international aid
- barbazoo 4y ago
  I might be misunderstanding this but there are many many sources that estimate Russia's arsenal of nuclear weapons to be non zero. > according to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads - the devices that trigger a nuclear explosion - though this includes about 1,500 that are retired and set to to be dismantled. Of the remaining 4,500 or so, most are considered strategic nuclear weapons - ballistic missiles, or rockets, which can be targeted over long distances. These are the weapons usually associated with nuclear war. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    I completely misread your comment as coming from zelensky, my bad
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      I could have been more clear.

idiocrat 4y ago

Yes this is a direct threat of using nuclear weapons, but addressed for the NATO. This becomes clear if seen in the context of the speech. The cold war has actually never ended and the situation is getting worse. My argument is that this is not the premise of the article: "people worry about whether Putin could turn to tactical nukes if faced with a total defeat in Ukraine." Putin has enough conventional weapons for not to use the tactical weapons in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki desperate style.

thatguy0900 4y ago

How can that be a bluff to use nuclear weapons when he has none, and will never receive any? If anything that sounds more like a threat to use chemical weapons which he could probably make pretty easily if he was willing to forego international aid

barbazoo 4y ago
I might be misunderstanding this but there are many many sources that estimate Russia's arsenal of nuclear weapons to be non zero. > according to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads - the devices that trigger a nuclear explosion - though this includes about 1,500 that are retired and set to to be dismantled. Of the remaining 4,500 or so, most are considered strategic nuclear weapons - ballistic missiles, or rockets, which can be targeted over long distances. These are the weapons usually associated with nuclear war. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  I completely misread your comment as coming from zelensky, my bad
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    I could have been more clear.