4 ms·
> Am I wrong to be concerned? Fortunately yes. There are very long and well-respected traditions when it comes to nukes, and despite Russian propaganda and sh
by twoquestions 4y ago
> Am I wrong to be concerned?
Fortunately yes.
There are very long and well-respected traditions when it comes to nukes, and despite Russian propaganda and shitposters going on about nuclear tidal waves and other nonsense, serious diplomats have maintained that nuclear policy remains the same, which means they'll only use nukes if there's an existential threat to Russia (which getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine is not), or enemy nuclear strike (which we aren't about to do).
Here's a deep dive from someone smarter than me in these things, it put my mind at ease and I hope it works for you too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4
- conorcleary 4y agoYeah, but the element of surprise and cold-served revenge is something that bad actors thrive on. So the least expected attack becomes the most impactful.
- kypro 4y agoCould I ask two questions? 1: Do you believe there's a chance Ukraine will try to retake Crimea? 2: Do you believe Putin could see Ukraine trying to retake the Russian territory of Crimea with NATO weapons as an existential threat to Russia? Unless I'm wrong, I think this is all you need? I'm not saying Ukraine will try to take Crimea or that it's even likely, but I suppose it seems quite possible that could happen now that Ukraine has been armed with NATO tanks and Zelensky has suggested many times that he wants to "liberate" Crimea. So am I correct in thinking where we disagree here is that you don't believe it's likely Putin would consider an invasion of Crimea with NATO weapons an existential threat to Russia? Presumably you believe Putin agrees Crimea isn't really theirs and that NATO sending weapons enabling Ukraine to invade Russian territory poses them no existential threat?