Last time I voted it was like a multiple choice thing like the nba all star voting @basso Am I not a rockets fan if I don’t vote for Kevin Porter Jr? I rather have Harden back, so what he pissed off some people with his defense @Os Trigonum @AroundTheWorld but for sports illustrated supermodel of the year I’m voting for a woman like a real one And not fat Clutchfans woke people are about body positive but this ain’t sumo wrestling @Jontro
I was reading some comments from Ukrainians saying they don’t fear Russian nukes because they’ve already been bombed so badly. The problem with that comparison is that what you can’t see in the pic of Hiroshima is the lingering radiation that was affecting people there long after the bomb was dropped. Ukraine already has a no go zone around Chernobyl. If nukes are used there will be zones like that. This is why casual talk of using nukes or downplaying the use of nukes is dangerous and reckless. If Russia were to use nukes we have no idea how long the damage will be and how far things could spiral out.
Agreed. The nuke talk is reckless and dangerous. However Russia *currently* is in no position to use them. There is a rising probability if the war heads into certain directions, for example, if NATO soldiers get directly involved. If Putin uses them in the current conditions, the entire world and its own citizens would turn on Putin completely. The only way Putin can get away with it is if the nuke is used in its current borders. And I think he would.
Russians murder a surrendered and captured Ukranian soldier. Spoilered for actual war crimes: Spoiler
Any Ukrainian that says this would be well served by looking up the story of Hisahi Ouchi.* *Do not look this up if you have a weak stomach. It should put all casual downplay of nuclear weapons to an end.
I think it’s also likely that Russia wouldn’t use nukes unless they are attacked directly in Russia. Territory. That’s a big guess though and is one of the biggest reasons why I am very cautious about advocating for giving Ukraine things like advanced fighter jets. The problem is that I don’t think no one can say for sure if or under what conditions Russia might use nukes and I think a lot of talk thst russia is only bluffing or the that use of Russian tactical nukes could be handled is ver dangerous. Consider if Russia feels its only chance to make up the advantage in superior weaponry supplied to Ukraine is a tactical nuke. How would the US and NATO respond to that? The argument is that the US and NATO would then launch an overwhelming conventional attack on Russia. Russia still has a nuclear deterrent including things like subs and they could then decide that this massive conventional attack amounts to an existential threat and they respond with not just tactical nuke but strategic nukes. At that point we’re in a full blown nuclear war. Yes Russia will lose but at what cost to us? A single strategic nuke that hits its target will kill millions.
That is just cultural bravado, their way of saying that they are tough and can withstand and make any sacrifice. It is an Eastern European cultural thing .... the Russians are doing the same thing, there are viral videos in Eastern Europe where older women are saying that they don't care if they lose their sons because they can always have more. I agree with your sentiment though, the use of any nuclear weapons is a MASSIVE game changer, and will put the entire world at risk.
