4 ms·
Yes, but only technically. What matters is the advanced weapons system each of these countries has on its territory. Think Aegis Ashore and the likes of that. O
by Animatronio 4y ago
Yes, but only technically. What matters is the advanced weapons system each of these countries has on its territory. Think Aegis Ashore and the likes of that. Otherwise, they're just empty land (from a military viewpoint).
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoIf we free ourselves of the bounds of what is technically true, then we can justify nearly anything. I'm not sure it's a productive line of reasoning.
- Animatronio 4y agoWhat are you trying to say here? Technically true is still true, so we should take it into account when making a decision.
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoThat we should take into account that NATO is already 'at their doorstep', regardless of which weapon systems are where, since they can be deployed anywhere later.
- Animatronio 4y agoThen you'll have no problem explaining this: https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2023/03/26/poland-nuclear-arms-in-belarus-are-further-threat-to-european-peace https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2023/03/26/poland-nuclear-arm... while also this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nucl...
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoI'm not sure what part you are asking me to explain to you? They seem relatively self-explanatory.