4 ms·
> Would the US tolerate those acts? Yes? What about their nuclear policy from the past half-century convinces you otherwise?
by smoldesu 3y ago
> Would the US tolerate those acts?
Yes? What about their nuclear policy from the past half-century convinces you otherwise?
- justsomehnguy 3y agoIn the last 50 years US never had anything on their border.
- smoldesu 3y agoEven if they did, it wouldn't change much. 1. Nobody would launch nukes domestically, so moot point. 2. Using nukes internationally would be a faux-pas beyond fixing. Every modern, nuclear-equipped nation understands this. 3. The United States doesn't need nuclear weaponry to dispel invaders, or even to retaliate against foreign attacks. Their nuclear weapons exist to deter other nuclear superpowers from using their weapons for petty gain.
- martin8412 3y agoAbsolutely agreed. The US military is so well funded and capable that they could finish the job without needed to resort to nukes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SanjayMehta 3y agoNot sure if you’re being sarcastic or serious.
- cpursley 3y agoAmerica totally crushed Grenada!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sharts 3y agoDoesn’t the US make regular use of depleted uranium munitions? Particularly in the middle east? Definitely seems nuclear.
- djur 3y agoDepleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.
- cpursley 3y agoTell that to the non-combat victims: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/#:~:text=Research%20funded%20by%20the%20US,of%20DU%20weapons%20remain%20uncertain https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/#:~:tex....
- smoldesu 3y agoYou can tell them whatever you want. It won't change the wording of the Geneva convention though.
- djur 3y agoYou're free to argue that DU rounds are effectively a poisonous weapon and should be banned on those grounds. I would agree. That doesn't change the fact that depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.