• MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you attack EU, you die. That shall be rule.

    First strike is the sharpest sword and the biggest shield.

    Why would you need to understand something when that something already fucks up the whole world?

    • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      The EU doesn’t need nukes to defend itself from a Russian invasion. Ukraine got the West’s hand-me-downs and has completely stalemated Russia with them for over a year. Russia’s conventional forces are a paper tiger. The question is will Russia resort to nukes when the war goes sideways for them.

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Russia will continue to soften up the EU, and the US with hybrid psyops warfare then take bits and pieces of real estate. It is working quit well now actually.

        • letsgocrazy@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Depends how you consider “quite well” - the total collapse of Russia’s military credbility, the insanely high casualty rate, the loss of material, for something that they were already allowed to use in Crimea, and a part of the Donbas?

          I wouldn’t call that “well” at all. Seems like a completely disaster.

    • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Maybe reasonable would be a better word.

      Once someone uses a nuke, everyone will, and then everyone’s dead anyway.

        • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I understand the posturing. Attacking the EU needs to be presented as a terrible idea, but when people start talking about using nukes loosely, then the other side might also consider them fair game. I guess, in my opinion, using first strike nukes is never justified, and if the EU or anyone does it then they’re no better than the aggressors. I would prefer we hold ourselves to higher standards instead of letting the bad actors bring us down to their level.

            • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes and we shouldn’t let them bring us down to their level. First strike is never justified, but second strike in response could be. They don’t care about their people, so they probably want to goad others into nuking them. It would free them up to use theirs and claim it’s justified. Let’s not play into their hands.

        • DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          @MrCookieRespect @School_Lunch but it’s not. @anderspuck had a great video and vlexler a solid addendum how Russian aggression would occur. The biggest sword that putin has if Trump questions art 5 is indeed nuclear blackmail. That is imo the reason why the US has put nukes in RAF Lakenheath (UK has no tac nukes). But a big big big reminder: NATO is 99% posture and a ‘promise:. It was never contested. Art. 5 is an’ invitation to discuss’, nothing more (sadly).