11 ms·
Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia with Long-Range U.S. Missiles
- toomuchtodo 2y ago[flagged]
- rightbyte 2y ago[flagged]
- 20after4 2y agoIf you are sincere then I think this must be the most reckless, unhinged proposal I've read on this website. Are you really literally suggesting to start a nuclear war with Russia?
- llamaimperative 2y agoNo it's suggesting giving Ukraine effective deterrent power, which is the opposite of nuclear war.
- rvz 2y agoWhat deterrent? Putin doesn't care about that and would use those warheads (largest stockpile of warheads) if necessary even as soon as Ukraine tries to attempt to get a deterrent. It is bad enough that the US is already in a proxy war and that does not help at all and arming Ukraine with nuclear warheads just further escalates the risk into another world war.
- monetus 2y agoThe US is in a proxy war akin to the French role in the US's founding war, the revolution. But different, in that the fear is that one defeated country dominoes into a wider European and cross Atlantic war, i.e. ww3. Not protecting Ukrainian sovereignity is seen as not protecting polish or Romanian independence. It isn't seen like Vietnam; it is seen as China after the mukden incident or Czechoslovakia had they fought a Nazi invasion.
- MrHamburger 2y agoIt is quite logical. Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 where UK, USA and Russia guaranteed sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil which remained there after dissolution of USSR. If Russia wants to renege on Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine should get their nukes back. Also you can see another side of the coin - Iran and DPRK would need to be insane to get rid of their nukes because only reason why big powers won't touch them is the nuclear poison pill, which Ukrainians gave up and look where they are.
- blub 2y agoThe Budapest Memorandum was a way to force a potential* nuclear player and/or nuclear wildcard out of the game. When you see it for what it is, giving Ukraine nuclear weapons is the last thing anyone (except internet posters) wants. * They didn’t control the weapons, nor could they financially afford to maintain them.
- MrHamburger 2y agoControl is very relevant here. The hardest part of nuclear weapon - plutonium core - was there. The fact that you don't have access keys from electronics which controls explosives around the plutonium core is kind of non-issue for a state actor.
- asdf123qweasd 2y agoTrump wants everyone to get nuclear weapons. He wants a world of transactional big players and unreliable alliances with shakedowns. That is a world were everyone scrambles for a nuke, naturally. And pakistan is broke- you can get one there relatively cheap.
- nradov 2y agoThe USA and Israel regard Iran as enough of a threat that they won't allow it to obtain nuclear weapons. Strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are one of the primary missions that B-2 bomber crews train for. There's no intent to seize Iranian territory, they'll just wreck everything and leave.
- azemetre 2y agoSad to say but the only way to be taken seriously and avoid military incursions/invasions is to hold nuclear weapons. I do wonder how nuclear disarmament will continue when it looks like obtaining nuclear arms is one of the few ways to truly achieve sovereignty and not rely on the benefactors of your neighbors. Curious if anyone has reading materials about this.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoNuclear disarmament is over because, otherwise, you’re putting your nation’s sovereignty in the hands of the US electorate. Would you trust them with your life and future? I certainly wouldn’t. If you can’t trust superpowers (including the US), you have to protect and defend yourself. That’s the nuclear way (and perhaps a bit more percentage of GDP towards defense for everyone). In a civil world, it wouldn’t be necessary, but based on who keeps floating to the top of the power hierarchy, it’s mandatory. Maybe a nation worth trusting will rise again, but I’m not hopeful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
- N19PEDL2 2y agoSad to say, but it's true. The US wasted the opportunity that was created by the end of the USSR.
- MrHamburger 2y agoMy guess is, that if USA will keep playing around and pretend that Ukraine is somebody else's problem to solve, they will find out that Eastern Europe can make a nuke too. Then what is USA going to do? Sanction Europeans? Then there is no reason to continue sanctioning Iran from Europeans perspective for exactly same thing.
- nradov 2y agoWhich Eastern European country do you mean? Most are already NATO members. Of those that aren't, Belarus is already a Russian client state, Serbia is too far away, and Moldova is too poor to do anything.
- nradov 2y agoElements of the Ukranian government have apparently sort of quietly hinted that if they don't receive sufficient conventional military aid then they'll be forced to develop nuclear weapons as a last resort. Ukraine has officially denied this, but it's impossible to know how they'll react as Russia conquers more and more territory. Ukrainian leaders are quite aware that the only meaningful guarantees of continued sovereignty would be NATO membership or having their own nukes. Otherwise even if the current war is settled with some sort of truce, Russia could just rearm and attack again in a few years. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-nuclear-bomb-1985621 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-nuclear-bomb-1985621
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tomatotomato37 2y agoGiven the state of post-collapse Soviet bookkeeping I also wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine actually does still have some warheads kept in secret. The problem though is those may not be enough against a country which spent the last half-century preparing for a war involving thousands of warheads.
- asdf123qweasd 2y agoLets not forget that russias "subversion" of europes politics and culture is also relentless. The fifth column would continue the attack from inside, even if a treaty was signed. AFD and BS in germany come to mind, Front National in France, etc. They have so many useful idiots, with anit-imperial ideas useful for the last empire standing.
- iwontberude 2y agoUkraine already has the capability to make nuclear weapons.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoWhat help do they need to build them faster?
- yieldcrv 2y agowhats the over-under on that getting revoked in 2 months? what can be done by that military in that amount of time?
- exe34 2y agothey need to capture as much Russian soil as they can, and when the orange man and the other clown tell them to freeze the border, Ukraine can say sure, if you insist!
- stoneman24 2y agoNot sure how much additional real estate they can capture due to limited resources (especially manpower). But this gives them a better chance of holding what they have and destroying the Russian logistics and infrastructure. Hopefully the European powers and the UK will lift any restrictions that they have imposed and provide additional supplies.
- exe34 2y agowhatever they're going to do, they have two months. I really hope they manage to get a reasonable deal out of this. I personally think giving up land should come with full NATO membership or at least the kind of mutual defence that the UK signed with Finland and Sweden on their way into NATO.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y agoUkrainians loose soil everyday. I’m not sure what happens in your reality though.
- exe34 2y agoin my reality, they captured a small piece of Kursk - how did it go in yours?
- sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
- gukov 2y agoVery late but, nonetheless, thank you.
- petermcneeley 2y agoRussia claimed that deep strikes into Russian territory would be crossing a "red line". We shall see; I am nervously excited.
- blub 2y agoLikely response is bombing whatever is left of Ukrainian power generation and potentially arming the Houthis. The analysis I’ve seen indicates that these weapons will not fundamentally alter the course of the war. Kursk was a gamble to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, which has gotten consistently worse.
- monetus 2y agoMaybe I'm wrong, but with the river north of the Ukrainian border, it seemed like they wanted that as new easier to maintain defensive line. The defenses in the north were affected by incompetence or corruption, so the push north came across a little like shoring up their positions to need fewer men in the long run.
- tim333 2y agoThey've said about thirty things are red lines and then not done much.
- LinuxBender 2y agoThis is true but for what it's worth we can only get this wrong once.
- asdf123qweasd 2y agoVery syria of them.. well i guess we shall see a lot of sabotage tomorrow in europe.
- handfuloflight 2y agoDogs bark before they bite.
- Modified3019 2y agoLong overdue
- bingohbangoh 2y agodoes nobody think this will risk nuclear war? Is this really a place we want to risk it? I'm amazed at the comments section here
- jsiepkes 2y agoYou think letting Russia harass and invade their former vazal states is without risk? They've occupied eastern Europe until 1989. With the invasion of Crimea in 2014 they've basically only not harassed and not occupied eastern European countries for only 25 years. The only thing which provokes Russia is weakness.
- bingohbangoh 2y agoSo we all blow ourselves up and kill everybody? † To own Russia? †: everybody == a lot of people, just to be clear
- mmooss 2y ago> To own Russia? That's not the goal. It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum. It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945. It's for people: The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.
- blashyrk 2y ago> It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum. This is a fair and logical point. > It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945. That very international order hinges on the US being the sole dominator of the entire world. Sooner or later that sort of international order has to crack. > The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake. Pax Americana is paid for (in blood, natural resources, political sovereignty and the fate of every single future generation) by hundreds of millions of people, though outside of the "western, civilized" world. You still consider it some righteous cause? Sounds kind of selfish.
- monetus 2y agoThe atacms strikes will help in kursk, but less so in the east imo. Maybe this will mess up those logistics as well, but it seems too little too late. Just politically, It isn't parity to ten thousand soldiers and 60% of their shells being North Korean. North Korea is at war in Europe, and this is not a commensurate response. Lifting the restrictions now after Russia's logistics have already retreated also took the bite out of their potential. It should have been a surprise, overnight, when the Russian airforce was still relatively concentrated and unconcerned. Better than nothing; I hope it changes something, for a time at least.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago10000 soldiers is about a weeks worth of russian casualities
- ponector 2y agoNot weeks. A week.
- wqefjwpokef 2y ago[dead]
- rvz 2y ago[flagged]
- wwwlouishinofun 2y ago[flagged]
- nikolay 2y ago[flagged]
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago[flagged]
- ashoeafoot 2y agoBecause those voices scream only when russia finfs it usefull and it hoodwinked a whole generation disguised as the ussr that it was a antiimperial force of freedom. Fool me once,shame on me, fool me twice, himars om you.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoRussia could leave Ukraine and there would be peace.
- rsynnott 2y agoIf Putin wants peace, he can simply, well, leave. Unless that happens, it is reasonable for Ukraine to defend itself.
- foxyv 2y agoI believe in peace as well. I will happily recommend that Russia should end their war of aggression against Ukraine and return all territories that they have captured. Question is, who will bell the cat?
- munksbeer 2y agoWould you mind letting us know which country you're from? If Russia invaded your country, claimed part of your land, how far would you let them go, just to preserve peace? Is there a cut-off point for you, or none at all?
- valval 2y agoI'd probably let them take the 60%+ Russian speaking parts where I had been persecuting their countrymen and then maybe sue for peace or something along those lines.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y agoRussia gave freedom to my country. And to almost 90% of global south. Russia also gave freedom to Europe from Nazi Germany. Communist fighters also gave their lives for freedom from Nazis in most Scandinavian countries including baltic. The only three countries that invaded and threatened to invade are US, UK and Germany. History is now repeating as a farce run by a senile demented 90 year old man who doesnt care about anyones lives because he doesnt have much left either.
- geenkeuse 2y ago[flagged]
- tim333 2y agoThe US and its allies are not very stretched in general. US troops in combat zero, US aircraft zero etc. I mean they are a bit stretched in some areas like making artillery ammo that we kind of thought was a thing of the past but there are huge amounts of stuff not being used. I don't know if you remember the 1991 gulf war? That was the last time the US flexed really. Iraq had 1,000,000+ soldiers 5,500 tanks 700+ aircraft 3,000 artillery systems and they were wiped out in no time.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]