Washington expressed its concerns to Kyiv about the two attacks against radar stations that provide conventional air defense as well as warning of nuclear launches by the West, the article read.
So if MOST of their nuclear weapons don’t work, how many nukes hitting the US would you say is okay? Because while it’s pretty safe to assume some, maybe even many of their nukes don’t function properly, it’s a bit much to assume none of them work, and it’s a bit much to gamble a few million lives on the idea that none of the ones that do work will actually get through.
This is such a weird restriction. Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and the Soviets, and both had boots on the ground. Nobody was particularly concerned this would cause WW3. Why is Ukraine different? Of course, I am not advocating a fully armed confrontation, but Western elite troops that can mark targets, take out key operatives, and direct troops? I don’t see the issue.
US weapons weren’t landing on strategic Russian assets inside territory that Russia claimed as it’s own. That’s why no one was overly concerned about nuclear escalation or WW III.
The US would also like to not get nuked by Putin, which is why they haven’t directly entered the war.
If the state of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is anything like the rest of their military the US really doesn’t have much to worry about.
So if MOST of their nuclear weapons don’t work, how many nukes hitting the US would you say is okay? Because while it’s pretty safe to assume some, maybe even many of their nukes don’t function properly, it’s a bit much to assume none of them work, and it’s a bit much to gamble a few million lives on the idea that none of the ones that do work will actually get through.
eat that fear sandwich. it’s nothing but good for you!
Or that the world would be hurt even if all of them fail before reaching their targets, or even failing in the silos (best case).
We have enough cancerous shit in our environment as it is.
This is such a weird restriction. Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and the Soviets, and both had boots on the ground. Nobody was particularly concerned this would cause WW3. Why is Ukraine different? Of course, I am not advocating a fully armed confrontation, but Western elite troops that can mark targets, take out key operatives, and direct troops? I don’t see the issue.
US weapons weren’t landing on strategic Russian assets inside territory that Russia claimed as it’s own. That’s why no one was overly concerned about nuclear escalation or WW III.
Here I am talking about Western troops that would be active in Ukraine, not Russia.