• InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They already invaded a nuke-holding country, doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem.

      We had a thunder-run make it halfway to Moscow last year, and Putin just ran: Russia might be a nuke-holding country, but they’re unfortunately handicapped by being a country full of Russians.

      Who in the fuck do you think developed those nukes for them anyway? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology

      You think Russia could make new ones or even maintain the old without Ukrainians? https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-missile-failed-during-test-researchers-imagery-indicate-2024-09-23/

      All this is going to do is guarantee Ukraine is a nuclear state again by the end of 2025, which is fine with me, we promised their security in exchange for giving up the nukes they developed, might as well let them have them back considering what trash they have to live next to.

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re splitting hairs on the difference between violating a country’s territory and threatening its existance, and since you need it spelled out, they aren’t just any nuke-holding country. They are one of a few that has the capability to wipe all life on earth even if their targets never returned fire, but please, do go on about how going gloves-off at them “by proxy” is such a great idea.

        You’ll have better luck convincing Russia to back down by diplomatic means than you will convincing NATO to do what you are suggesting. That’s how stupid of an idea it is.