we are at war with Russia

What I'm saying is that Ukraine itself is no threat.
I agree they are the "platform" while they are at war.

No, not a word about peace anymore. Doesn't the USA stand for peace? Or supposed to?

We're the biggest arms dealer in the world!
How's that giving peace a chance!
 
America is not at war. Countries send weapons to people who are at war with their enemies. Russia armed the middle east countries we went to war with. We are helping Ukraine. Russia was helping Vietnam when we fought there. In the end, war will hurt Russia. We are for that.
 
I'd prefer we not burn. There are nuclear warheads aimed at our largest cities and nuclear power plants.

Most of us would. But be careful what you wish for...

Most likely I'll be 1st. Well, I've lived a good life and don't have many regrets. :dunno:
 
Most likely I'll be 1st. Well, I've lived a good life and don't have many regrets. :dunno:

I did alright. Could have made a few different choices, but I had a blast. All in all, it was all good. I'm content, but I do need another garage and move further away from town (damn developments!).
 
I did alright. Could have made a few different choices, but I had a blast. All in all, it was all good. I'm content, but I do need another garage and move further away from town (damn developments!).

I'm the last stop before cow country, but that won't do me any good. It is what it is. :dunno:
 
I'm the last stop before cow country, but that won't do me any good. It is what it is. :dunno:

I was next to the woods when I moved here. Farms just down the road. Now there's a development above me, the woods were timbered and now there's a hay field there (just great for my allergies) and more traffic.
I want out in the middle of nowhere with soybean fields and woods next to me.
 
And in turn, nuclear destruction of us. Is that what you want?

No, that is why it is very unlikely to happen--mutual assured destruction.

Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used when only one nation possesses them.
 
No, that is why it is very unlikely to happen--mutual assured destruction.

Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used when only one nation possesses them.

Again. What does Putin have to lose? He's a walking dead man at this point.

They will be retaliated against by nations who also have nukes.

And why isn't anyone watching N. Korea?
 
Again. What does Putin have to lose? He's a walking dead man at this point.

They will be retaliated against by nations who also have nukes.

And why isn't anyone watching N. Korea?

Even a walking dead man does not want to go before he has to, and he certainly does not want to be the person who got his country destroyed. North Korea is in a powerless position and hasn't posed a threat to anybody for many years.
 
Even a walking dead man does not want to go before he has to, and he certainly does not want to be the person who got his country destroyed. North Korea is in a powerless position and hasn't posed a threat to anybody for many years.

Why would he care if his country is destroyed if he's gonna be tried for war crimes if anyone gets a hold of him?
N. Korea IS a threat to S. Korea, for one. If they get ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US, bet your ass they'll be aimed at us too.
 
No, that is why it is very unlikely to happen--mutual assured destruction.

Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used when only one nation possesses them.
specifically MAD is not in play even with the USA military ties to Uk war
Russia would never launch an ICBM; however the possibility of "battlefield nukes" is increasing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW) is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.
 
Back
Top