4 ms·
As someone who's worked in numerous war zones, and has had to deal with the real world consequences of UXO, I firmly disagree. Biological and chemical weapons
by specproc 5mo ago
As someone who's worked in numerous war zones, and has had to deal with the real world consequences of UXO, I firmly disagree.
Biological and chemical weapons could help you win, nuclear weapons could help you win. We don't use this stuff for a reason.
- nradov 5mo agoSo then the Ukrainians should just roll over and stop trying to resist? Losing your country is a far more serious consequence then dealing with some UXO later.
- specproc 5mo agoThere is a big leap between not resisting and using weapons that are widely agreed to be abhorrent. You're framing a false binary choice here: either deploy weapons that the majority of countries have deemed unconscionable, or lose your country in its entirety. There is also a difference between why we fight and how we fight. Fighting in self defence does not give a state the right to conduct a war in any way it chooses. There are numerous ongoing conflicts in which we've seen states shed hard-won agreements on how wars should be fought. It's an incredibly dangerous trend which is leading us into a new era of horror. Where would you put the limits on Ukraine's actions? What is beyond the pale?
- nradov 5mo agoWhat an ignorant comment, totally disconnected from reality. It literally was a binary choice: without using land mines and cluster munitions the Ukrainian defenders would have been overrun by superior Russian numbers.
- specproc 5mo agoYou ever been in a war zone, son? You ever see what happens after? I assure you there's no ignorance in my comments.
- whatevaa 5mo agoThe enemy is using them against you anyway, so you are just losing out.