> What nuclear taboo? I think hiroshima and nagasaki ended any hope for a nuclear taboo.
Then Russia is free to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine and they are free to suffer the consequences too.
If the nuclear weapons actually work that is.
Then Russia is free to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine and they are free to suffer the consequences too.
If the nuclear weapons actually work that is.
Why ukraine? Russia's enemy isn't ukraine. Surely they'll use it on their enemies.
> and they are free to suffer the consequences too.
What were the consequences of hiroshima and nagasaki again?
> If the nuclear weapons actually work that is.
I suspect if their nuclear weapons didn't work, we would have nuked them a long time ago.
Sometimes people get so silly here.
Well they keep threatening to nuke Ukraine and like a dozen more countries, generally over things that happen in Ukraine.
> What were the consequences of hiroshima and nagasaki again?
What war is Russia fighting against an existential threat that is trying to invade them again?.
> I suspect if their nuclear weapons didn't work, we would have nuked them a long time ago. > Sometimes people get so silly here.
Why? even if they didn't work we probably wouldn't nuke them, we don't nuke people just because.
America spends more money on maintaining its nukes than Russia spends on its entire military.
I have serious doubts about all of Russias nuke working given just how hollowed out and non-existent much cheaper parts of their military appear to be.
Well that's not nice.
> and like a dozen more countries, generally over things that happen in Ukraine.
Good? Like a dozen more countries overthrew a democratically elected government in ukraine. Good for russia for protecting democracy in ukraine.
> What war is Russia fighting against an existential threat that is trying to invade them again?.
Either this is the dumbest comment I've read or the most confused comment I've read. Who was japan an existential threat against? Who did japan invade 'again'?
> Why? even if they didn't work we probably wouldn't nuke them, we don't nuke people just because.
Ask the japanese about hiroshima and nagasaki...
> I have serious doubts about all of Russias nuke working given just how hollowed out and non-existent much cheaper parts of their military appear to be.
Then what are you crying about?
What part of invading a country is protecting its democracy?.
> Either this is the dumbest comment I've read or the most confused comment I've read. Who was japan an existential threat against? Who did japan invade 'again'?
By my count Japan invaded at least 16 countries during WW2 and occupied a large number of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired...
They were also bombing a number of areas pre invasion such as America and Australia.
It worked for iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, etc so it must work for ukraine.
> By my count Japan invaded at least 16 countries during WW2
None of those 16 nuked japan though. You are not as clever as you think you are.
> and occupied a large number of them.
All of those 'countries' were occupied by european colonizers before japan kicked them out. So using your logic, britain, netherlands, france, etc should all have been nuked.
> They were also bombing a number of areas pre invasion such as America and Australia.
Well both america and australia had declared war on japan. Also, america and australia were colonizing powers in asia far worse than japan. You might want to brush up on your history.
But regardless, none of that justify nuking a bunch of civilians does it...
I get the first two, but Vietnam? Unless you mean the Chinese invasion that came after end of the war that the Americans were involved in?
That's the dumbest shit I've read here. Why would the chinese try to bring democracy to vietnam. I'm talking about the vietnam war where we liberated more than 4 million innocent vietnamese of their lives to bring them democracy.
You said “invasion”, so you mean America went into Vietnam to upsurp what, the south Vietnamese government, or the north Vietnamese? It was a civil war with north Vietnam invading the south, with the Americans and south Vietnamese mostly on defense rather than offense. America didn’t invade the north (well, beyond bombing). I guess you are arguing against south Vietnam’s right to exist, but that would be a pretty horrible position to take in my opinion.
China actually invaded Vietnam after it was unified with troops and boots on the ground. There are no other invasions in recent times (the French were basically kicked out in the first phase of the war, their invasion happened in the previous century).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_campaign
> You are not as clever as you think you are