3 ms·
“A drastically improved world” is not what would come from that; nuclear strikes would.
by thehappypm 3y ago
“A drastically improved world” is not what would come from that; nuclear strikes would.
- unclebucknasty 3y agoIf "nuclear strikes" were advantageous to Russia, then they'd have already executed them. They don't want the response. More than that, the idea that they can invade a country and the country's allies shouldn't enter the country to help defend because it would result in a "nuclear strike" ends where, exactly? It's a completely irrational posture that Russia would love the world to assume. They could literally take all of Europe without firing a shot.
- thehappypm 3y agoIf a NATO country attacked Russia directly, then the response very well could be a nuclear strike. NATO is a threat to Russia. Russia would need to take a direct attack very seriously and would reply in kind. Maybe we need a stronger definition of “ally”. The USA is in a treaty with 32 member states that obligates boots-on-the-ground. Ukraine isn’t one of them. The line of where a country’s obligations to help an “ally” is defined in terms like that.
- unclebucknasty 3y agoThe discussion was not about "attacking Russia directly". It was about NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. In that case, there's a near-zero percent chance that Russia would use nukes. Allyship does not require NATO membership. Clearly, the U.S. and NATO members consider Ukraine an ally.