6 ms·

What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then u

by mopsi 2y ago

What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.

aa-jv 2y ago
NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
- mopsi 2y ago
  > NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    >Not true. Yes, true: https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/ukraine-russia-conflict/ukraine-secretly-requests-us-tomahawk-missiles-to-enable-long-range-strikes-in-conflict-with-russia https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co... Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 >That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? >Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them? That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > Yes, true No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them. > Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months. > Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 > That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?
      - aa-jv 2y ago
        >No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled. >They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards? That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it? > No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations. If not for that coup. >Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not? You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.

by mopsi 2y ago

aa-jv 2y ago

NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

mopsi 2y ago
> NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
- aa-jv 2y ago
  >Not true. Yes, true: https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/ukraine-russia-conflict/ukraine-secretly-requests-us-tomahawk-missiles-to-enable-long-range-strikes-in-conflict-with-russia https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co... Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026 >That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? >Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them? That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Yes, true No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them. > Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months. > Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference? Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700 > That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast? That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?
    - aa-jv 2y ago
      >No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled. >They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards? That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it? > No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations. If not for that coup. >Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not? You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.