SecondWar said:
Pyro as Bill said:
Idgaf about 'muh escalation'. I get that the US has an opportunity to outplay China by bringing Russia onside and it could easily swing in the opposite direction but had we sent 2 years ago what we've sent since, Russia would be on their arse.
Ukraine has obeyed when we told them Western weapons can't be used on Russia proper. If Russia is willing to blow up a nuclear power station and multiple dams, it's only fair Ukraine has the option to make their own land inaccessible to an invading army.
TLDR: Russia is bluffing and they're not even good at it. Don't call them, raise them.
|
Well a lot of people (thankfully) do care about the potential escalation of the conflict because the prospect of nuclear war is something that no one wants to see. I feel you’re right about what would have happened if Ukraine hadn’t been supplied in drifts and drabs and while I think more should be given to support them I don’t believe that should extend to nuclear weapons.
Also I realise you suggested Ukraine use them on occupied territory, but that is land Ukraine wants back so in the long-term that would only disadvantage themselves.
Also, it’s either Russia or it’s not. There is no ‘proper’. Personal grammatical pet peeve.
|
Russia has threatened to nuke Ukraine and could still send a nuke powerplant into meltdown.
Ukraine's response to nuke threats is 'go for it, better to lose a city and have the US destroy the Russian military than lose the whole nation/have endless war'.
The US, Russia and UK agreed to protect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for giving up nukes. We failed on our side of the agreement so Ukraine has every right to pursue nukes.
Edit: 'proper' is to distinguish between occupied territories and Russia. I obviously know it's Ukrainian land but it's easier for sake of argument and there's no guarantee Ukraine will retake those lands
Last edited by Pyro as Bill - on 08 September 2023
